Lexplug logoLexplug

Anderson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

United States District Court, E. D. Louisiana
377 F.Supp. 136 (1974)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the 'maximum recovery rule,' a court will not grant a remittitur to reduce a jury's damage award unless the verdict exceeds the maximum amount a jury could have reasonably awarded based on a comprehensive review of the evidence for each element of damages.


Facts:

  • A defective heater manufactured by Sears ignited a fire that completely destroyed the Britain family's home.
  • The infant, Helen Britain, was severely burned in the fire.
  • Helen suffered second and third-degree burns over forty percent of her body, including third-degree burns covering eighty percent of her scalp.
  • Her initial treatment involved a 28-day hospitalization, multiple transfusions, and skin graft surgeries, which were only partially successful.
  • The burns and resulting scar tissue caused permanent disfigurement, webbing of her fingers, fixation of her arm at the elbow, and impaired walking.
  • Medical experts testified that she would require approximately twenty-seven future operations throughout her life.
  • The trauma occurred at a crucial age for psychological development, causing persistent emotional and mental disturbances, including withdrawal and speech impediments.
  • Expert testimony indicated her physical and emotional disabilities would permanently prevent her from earning a living.

Procedural Posture:

  • Mildred and Harry Britain, on behalf of themselves and their infant daughter Helen, sued Sears, Roebuck and Company, Preway, Inc., and its insurer in federal district court.
  • The defendants Preway, Inc. and its insurer filed a third-party complaint against Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., the insurer of a component part manufacturer.
  • The Britains then amended their complaint to add Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd. as a defendant.
  • The case was tried before a jury.
  • The jury returned a verdict for the Britains against Sears and Preway, awarding $2 million to Helen Britain.
  • The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant Employers Liability Assurance Corporation.
  • The defendants Sears and Preway filed post-trial motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial, and/or a remittitur.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a two-million-dollar jury verdict for an infant who suffered severe, permanent burns and disfigurement over 40% of her body excessive, thereby warranting a remittitur?


Opinions:

Majority - Cassibry, J.

No. The two-million-dollar verdict is not excessive and does not warrant a remittitur because it is well within the maximum amount a jury could have reasonably awarded based on the evidence. The court's role is not to substitute its own judgment for the jury's but to determine the highest possible award the evidence can support. To do this, the court analyzed five elements of damages: 1) Past physical and mental pain, for which $600,000 would be reasonable given the multiple surgeries and severe trauma during formative years. 2) Future physical and mental pain, for which $750,000 would be reasonable considering 27 future operations, the social stigma of disfigurement, and a 75-year life expectancy of suffering. 3) Future medical expenses, justifying $250,000 for lifelong surgical, psychiatric, and therapeutic care. 4) Loss of earning capacity, for which actuarial data supported an award of $330,000 due to permanent physical and emotional incapacity for employment. 5) Permanent disability and disfigurement, for which $1,100,000 would be reasonable given the grotesque and extensive nature of her lifelong injuries. Since the sum of these maximum reasonable amounts ($2,980,000) is significantly higher than the jury's $2,000,000 verdict, the award stands.



Analysis:

This case provides a detailed application of the 'maximum recovery rule,' a standard used to evaluate whether a jury's damage award is excessive. The decision emphasizes judicial deference to the jury's role as the finder of fact, establishing a high bar for defendants seeking a remittitur. By breaking down the award into constituent elements of damages and calculating the maximum reasonable amount for each, the court created a clear framework for this analysis. The opinion serves as a powerful precedent on how to justify a substantial damages award in catastrophic personal injury cases, reinforcing that the size of a verdict alone is not proof of excessiveness without evidence of jury passion or prejudice.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Anderson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1974)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"