Erickson ex rel. Erickson v. Hammermeister
1990 Minn. App. LEXIS 735, 458 N.W.2d 172 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court's decision regarding the amount of additur to a jury award for general damages is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard and will not be reversed unless it is manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence.
Facts:
- On June 22, 1985, four-year-old Cathy Erickson attended a backyard picnic at respondent Delano Hammermeister’s house.
- Earlier that day, Cathy had seen other children riding Hammermeister's German Shepherd dog.
- While the dog was sleeping, Cathy attempted to get on its back, which startled the dog.
- The dog bit Cathy on the face, exposing her jawbone and causing her to lose tissue and a portion of her jawbone, including two baby teeth and at least one permanent tooth bud.
- Cathy sustained a scar running from her inner right eye, across her nose, and under her left eyelid.
- Cathy will need to undergo comprehensive orthodontic treatment upon becoming a teenager.
- Cathy's past and future medical and dental expenses totaled $9732.13.
Procedural Posture:
- Cathy’s parents, David and Beverly Erickson, commenced a personal injury action against Delano Hammermeister, the dog’s owner, under a theory of absolute liability.
- The sole issue of damages was tried to a jury.
- The jury found that Cathy did not provoke the dog and awarded the Ericksons $8752.13 for past and future medical and dental expenses and $40 for past and future pain and suffering.
- The Ericksons moved the trial court for additur or a new trial or a Schwartz hearing.
- The trial court granted a new trial on the issue of damages unless Hammermeister consented to additur in the amount of $3750 for pain and suffering.
- Hammermeister accepted the additur.
- The Ericksons appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, contending the amount of additur was inadequate as a matter of law.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by awarding additur for general damages that, while nominal compared to the injury, causes the total award to exceed special damages and is not manifestly contrary to the evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Gardebríng, Judge
No, a trial court does not abuse its discretion by awarding additur for general damages that, while nominal compared to the injury, causes the total award to exceed special damages and is not manifestly contrary to the evidence. The court affirmed the additur, emphasizing that there is no fixed standard for measuring damages, and a trial court's decision on adequacy is given great deference and will only be reversed in "most unusual circumstances" or if "manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence." While the initial $40 jury award was nominal and likely a compromise, the $3750 additur increased the total general damages to a non-nominal amount. The court distinguished Kloos v. Soo Line Railroad, where the additur only covered special damages and failed to address general damages, by noting that here the total award ($8752.13 + $3750 = $12502.13) exceeded the proven special damages ($9732.13), thereby curing the deficiency. The court also held that the issue of provocation was properly submitted to the jury as a factual question and that a Schwartz hearing was correctly denied because the Ericksons were attempting to impeach the verdict, not correct a clerical error.
Dissenting - Norton, Judge
No, the amount of additur awarded by the trial court is inadequate as a matter of law and constitutes an abuse of discretion, warranting a new trial on damages. Judge Norton argued that the trial court's own findings, which passionately described Cathy’s severe and permanent injuries, were irreconcilable with the "de minimus" (very small) additur of $3750. Citing Seydel v. Reuber, the dissent contended that while the additur combined with special damages exceeded total special damages, the additur itself was still "entirely inadequate" and did not "reasonably comport with the proof in the record" for substantial general damages. The dissent further agreed with the majority that there was a "strong likelihood a compromise verdict occurred," which, in conjunction with the inadequate additur, should lead to a new trial on damages as per Kloos v. Soo Line Railroad to ensure justice for Catherine Erickson.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the significant deference given to trial court decisions regarding damage awards and additur amounts, establishing a high bar for appellate reversal. It clarifies that while a nominal jury verdict for general damages may indicate a compromise warranting intervention, an additur that sufficiently compensates, even if arguably modest, will likely be upheld if it remedies the initial deficiency and does not reflect an abuse of discretion. The ruling also underscores the limited circumstances under which a Schwartz hearing can be granted, primarily for clerical errors rather than challenges to jury deliberation or understanding of the law.
