Schoenborn v. Schoenborn

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: December 5, 2024
• Docket: N23C-05-112 MAA
• Status: Published

Opinion

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MEGHAN A. ADAMS LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER JUDGE 500 NORTH KING STREET, SUITE 10400 WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801 (302) 255-0634

December 5, 2024

Cynthia G. Beam, Esquire Jeffrey A. Young, Esquire Reger Rizzo & Darnall LLP Young & McNelis Brandywine Plaza West 300 South State Street 1521 Concord Pike, Suite 305 Dover, DE 19901 Wilmington, DE 19803

RE: Schoenborn v. Schoenborn C.A. No.: N23C-05-112 MAA

Dear Counsel:

This is the Court’s Letter Opinion regarding Defendant Henry Schoenborn’s

(“Defendant”) Motion for Remittitur (“Motion”)1. For the reasons stated herein, the

Motion is DENIED.

Facts2

On June 6, 2021, Defendant was dropping off his sister, Plaintiff Catherine

Schoenborn (“Plaintiff”), at a Goodwill store in Wilmington, Delaware. Defendant

proceeded to drive away from the storefront before Plaintiff fully exited the vehicle,

causing Plaintiff to be dragged by the moving car. An ambulance then transported

1 D.I. 36 ( Motion). 2 Unless otherwise noted, the facts are drawn from the Joint Pre-Trial Stipulation (D.I. 25). Schoenborn v. Schoenborn N23C-05-112 MAA

Plaintiff to the emergency room at Christiana Hospital. As a result of the accident,

Plaintiff suffered from a broken femur, among other injuries. On October 8, 2024,

a jury found Defendant negligent, awarding Plaintiff $94,000 in damages.3

Standard of Review

“A motion for… remittitur is directed to the sound discretion of the trial

court.”4 “Under Delaware law, enormous deference is given to jury verdicts.”5

When considering remittitur, “the trial court must evaluate the evidence and decide

whether the jury award falls within a supportable range.”6 Remittitur is appropriate

when the jury’s verdict “is so grossly disproportionate to the injuries suffered so as

to shock the Court's conscience and sense of justice.”7 The Court will not disturb

the jury’s verdict as excessive “unless it is so clear as to indicate that it was the result

of passion, prejudice, partiality, or corruption; or that it was manifestly the result of

disregard of the evidence or applicable rules of law.”8 “[A] verdict will not be set

aside simply because it is excessive in the mind of the Court, but only where, under

the attendant facts, a grossly excessive verdict is clearly manifest.”9

3 D.I. 34. 4 Broderick v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2002 WL 388117, *1 (Del. Super. Feb. 27, 2002) (citing Clough v. Wal-Mart, 1997 WL 528313, *1 (Del. Super. July 30, 1997); aff’d 712 A.2d 476 (Del. 1998)). 5 Young v. Frase, 702 A.2d 1234, 1236 (Del. 1997). 6 Reid v. Hindt, 976 A.2d 125, 131 (Del. 2009) (citation omitted). 7 Maier v. Santucci, 697 A.2d 747, 749 (Del. 1997) (citation omitted). 8 Storey v. Castner, 314 A.2d 187, 193 (Del. 1973) (citation omitted). 9 Id. 2 Schoenborn v. Schoenborn N23C-05-112 MAA

Analysis

Defendant, in his Motion, argues only $67,500.00 of “compensatory

damages” out of the jury’s $94,000.00 verdict is appropriate. According to

Defendant, the medical bills and special damages in the amount of $26,494.49

should not have been permitted to go to the jury.10

Defendant argues the Court erred in allowing Plaintiff to re-open Plaintiff’s

case in chief to admit certain medical bills and medical liens and that these exhibits

led to the special damages of $26,494.49 awarded by the jury.11 As such, Defendant

argues the evidence only supports a compensatory damages award of approximately

$67,500.00 in this case.12

Defendant’s Motion is merely a re-hash of arguments presented to, and

rejected by, the Court at trial. As the parties recall, during Plaintiff’s testimony,

Defendant’s counsel objected to certain evidence, and the Court directed Plaintiff’s

counsel to redact certain exhibits. Plaintiff’s counsel did so, but not until the evening

after Plaintiff had already stepped down from the witness stand. Defendant cannot

argue surprise or prejudice about the exhibits. The Court also provided Defendant

10 Motion ¶ 5. 11 Id. 12 Id. ¶3. The Court also notes Defendant cannot credibly state that the $94,000 judgment is excessive as evidenced by the Offer of Judgment of $175,000 filed by Defendant prior to trial. D.I. 28. 3 Schoenborn v. Schoenborn N23C-05-112 MAA

the opportunity to examine Plaintiff about the exhibits, but Defendant declined to do

so. Instead, Defendant appears to be trying to use a “gotcha” moment to support his

Motion. The Court will not permit such gamesmanship, and any decision by the

Court during trial can be challenged by Defendant on appeal.

As a final matter, the Court will address Defendant’s timeliness argument. On

November 6, 2024, Defendant’s counsel wrote the Court, arguing that Plaintiff failed

to timely respond to his Motion citing Superior Court Civil Rule 59(b).13 Defendant

is mistaken.

“The relief sought is the determinative factor in the classification of a motion

under Rule 59, not the labels used by the parties.”14 Superior Court Civil Rule 59(b)

governs a motion for a new trial.15 Defendant’s Motion asks the Court for remittitur

of the special damages awarded by the jury. The proper analysis for timeliness of a

motion for remittitur is Pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 59(d), as this is a

Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment.16 Rule 59(d) sets no time limit for a response

to such a motion. “A motion for new trial or remittitur is directed to the sound

13 D.I. 37. Plaintiff filed her response to the Motion on November 7, 2024. (D.I. 39). 14 Nicholson v. Sullivan, 1993 WL 542297, *1 (Del. Dec. 6, 1993). 15 See Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(b) (“The motion for a new trial shall be served and filed…”). 16 See Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(d) (“A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served and filed not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment.”); See e.g. Stroot v. New Haverford P’ship, 793 A.2d 411, 412 (Del. Super. 1999), aff'd, 772 A.2d 792 (Del. 2001) (“Before the Court is Defendants’ motion for remittitur and relief from the jury verdict, pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 59(d), contending that the damages award to plaintiffs Stroot and Watson is speculative and that it is so excessive that it should shock the judicial conscience.” (emphasis added)). 4 Schoenborn v. Schoenborn N23C-05-112 MAA

discretion of the trial court.”17 Thus, even if Plaintiff failed to timely file a response,

the Court sees no reason to grant Defendant’s Motion.

For the reasons stated herein, Defendant’s Motion for Remittitur is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Meghan A. Adams Meghan A. Adams

MAA/ls cc: Prothonotary

17 Broderick v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2002 WL 388117, *1 (Del. Super. February 27, 2002) (citing Clough v. Wal-Mart, 1997 WL 528313, *1 (Del. Super. July 30, 1997); aff’d 712 A.2d 476 (Del. 1998)). 5