Fertile v. St. Michael's Medical Center
169 N.J. 481, 2001 N.J. LEXIS 853, 779 A.2d 1078 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An excessively large damages award, standing alone, is insufficient to prove the jury was motivated by passion, prejudice, or bias, and does not warrant a new trial on all issues. To receive a new trial on liability, a party must show a specific trial error, attorney misconduct, or other indicia of prejudice that tainted the liability verdict.
Facts:
- On June 24, 1994, Marlene Fertile was admitted to St. Michael’s Medical Center while in labor.
- After observing a lack of progress, Dr. Cecil Holgado, a resident, determined that Mrs. Fertile would likely require a caesarean section (c-section) due to fetal pelvic disproportion.
- Dr. Angela Buontempo, another resident, took over monitoring Mrs. Fertile while Dr. Holgado attended to another patient.
- Observing signs of fetal distress on the monitor and that Mrs. Fertile was fully dilated, Dr. Buontempo decided an immediate vaginal delivery was necessary instead of a c-section.
- During the vaginal delivery, the infant, Danialie Fertile, experienced shoulder dystocia, where her shoulder became lodged against her mother's pubic bone.
- Dr. Buontempo performed maneuvers to dislodge the shoulder and complete the delivery.
- As a result of the difficult delivery, Danialie suffered a brachial plexus injury.
- The injury resulted in permanent partial paralysis and atrophy of Danialie's right arm, limiting her ability to perform daily tasks requiring two hands.
Procedural Posture:
- Danialie Fertile and Marlene Fertile sued Dr. Angela Buontempo and St. Michael’s Medical Center in a state trial court for medical malpractice.
- A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, awarding Danialie $15 million and Marlene $3 million.
- Defendants filed a post-trial motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, remittitur.
- The trial court denied the motion for a new trial on liability but found the damages excessive and ordered a remittitur, reducing Danialie's award to $5 million and Marlene's to $250,000.
- Plaintiffs accepted the reduced award.
- Defendants, as appellants, appealed to the Appellate Division, seeking a new trial on all issues.
- The Appellate Division reversed, finding plain error in plaintiffs' counsel's summation and concluding the 'grossly excessive' verdict indicated prejudice, and remanded for a new trial on all issues concerning Danialie.
- Plaintiffs petitioned for certification to the Supreme Court of New Jersey, which granted the petition.
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 grossly excessive damages award, standing alone, demonstrate sufficient jury passion, prejudice, or bias to warrant a new trial on all issues, including liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Long, J.
No, a grossly excessive damages award, standing alone, does not demonstrate sufficient jury passion, prejudice, or bias to warrant a new trial on all issues. To justify a new trial that includes liability, there must be trial error, attorney misconduct, or some other specific indicia of bias that impacted the liability verdict. The court first rejected the defendants' argument that comments made by the plaintiffs' counsel during summation constituted plain error. It found the comments were permissible inferences drawn from the trial evidence, and the defense's failure to object at the time suggested the comments were not prejudicial. The court then addressed the central issue of whether the size of the verdict alone could justify a new trial on all issues. It analyzed and expressly disapproved of the dictum in Taweel v. Starn’s Shoprite Supermarket, which suggested that a 'grossly excessive' award could, by itself, demonstrate prejudice tainting the entire verdict. The court found no principled distinction between an 'excessive' award (which justifies a new trial on damages or remittitur) and a 'grossly excessive' one. It concluded that a mere 'feeling' that something is amiss based on the verdict's size is an inadequate basis to overturn an otherwise sound liability finding. In the absence of specific trial errors impacting the liability determination, the proper remedy for an excessive verdict is a new damages trial or remittitur, not a new trial on all issues.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the standard for ordering a new trial on all issues following an excessive damages verdict. By rejecting the idea that the magnitude of an award can, by itself, prove jury passion or prejudice regarding liability, the court strengthens the finality of liability verdicts. This precedent makes it more difficult for defendants to obtain a complete retrial simply because a jury awarded a surprisingly large sum. The ruling reinforces the preference for remittitur as the primary remedy for excessive damages, thereby promoting judicial efficiency while requiring a clear, demonstrable link between a specific trial error and any alleged prejudice before overturning a jury's finding on liability.
