Fisch v. Manger
130 A.2d 815, 24 N.J. 66, 1957 N.J. LEXIS 170 (1957)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The practice of additur, where a trial court conditions the denial of a plaintiff's motion for a new trial for inadequate damages on the defendant's consent to a specified increase in the award, does not violate the New Jersey state constitutional right to a trial by jury.
Facts:
- Fisch's car was stopped in a line of traffic when it was struck from behind by a truck owned by a partnership defendant and driven by Manger.
- At the scene, Manger stated that he thought his foot had slipped off the brake.
- Fisch suffered a severe impact, which his doctor diagnosed as a 'whip lash injury' to his neck and back.
- His condition worsened, and further examination revealed a ruptured disc, which required a hemilaminectomy (a major back surgery).
- As a result of the accident and surgery, Fisch was left with permanent injuries, including chronic pain, muscle atrophy, and an inability to perform heavy work.
- Fisch had a previous, minor back injury from a 1950 accident, but the evidence showed he had fully recovered and was in good health before the 1953 accident in question.
Procedural Posture:
- Fisch sued Manger and his employer in a New Jersey trial court for negligence.
- A jury found the defendants negligent and returned a verdict for Fisch, awarding him $3,000 in damages.
- Fisch filed a motion for a new trial, arguing the damages were inadequate.
- The trial court judge denied the motion for a new trial on the condition that the defendants consent to increase the damage award to $7,500.
- The defendants consented to the additur, and the court entered a formal order dismissing the motion for a new trial.
- Fisch appealed the trial court's order to the Appellate Division.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey certified the appeal on its own motion before the Appellate Division heard the case.
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 the practice of additur, where a trial court denies a plaintiff's motion for a new trial for inadequate damages on the condition that the defendant consents to an increase in the damage award, violate the New Jersey constitutional right to a trial by jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Jacobs, J.
No, additur does not violate the New Jersey constitutional right to a trial by jury. The court held that additur is a permissible judicial tool that promotes substantial justice and judicial economy by avoiding the costs and delays of a new trial. The court reasoned that New Jersey's constitutional jury trial right protects the substance of the right, not every historical procedural detail, and allows for enlightened procedural devices. Finding additur to be logically and realistically indistinguishable from the long-accepted practice of remittitur, the court cited its own precedent in Gaffney v. Illingsworth and Esposito v. Lazar to confirm that trial courts have the discretionary power to employ it. While upholding the constitutionality of additur, the court found the trial judge in this case abused his discretion by setting the increased amount at a 'grossly inadequate' $7,500, based on a mistaken belief about the plaintiff's prior medical condition. Therefore, a new trial on the issue of damages was ordered.
Concurring - Heher, J.
While concurring in the result of ordering a new trial, Justice Heher argued that the practice of additur does violate the New Jersey constitutional right to a trial by jury. The reasoning is that the right to a jury trial is fixed as it existed at common law in 1776, at which time English courts had no power to increase a jury's damage award in a personal tort action. Adopting the logic from the U.S. Supreme Court's majority in Dimick v. Schiedt, the opinion asserts that while remittitur involves an amount already found by the jury, additur is a 'bald addition of something which in no sense can be said to be included in the verdict.' This unconstitutionally compels a plaintiff to accept a damage assessment made partly by a court, not exclusively by a jury, thereby violating the fundamental separation of powers between judge and jury. Therefore, the only proper remedy for an inadequate verdict is a new trial.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes the constitutionality of additur in New Jersey, creating a significant divergence from the federal court system, which rejected the practice in Dimick v. Schiedt. By placing additur on equal footing with the widely accepted practice of remittitur, the court armed New Jersey trial judges with a powerful tool for judicial economy, allowing them to correct inadequate jury verdicts without resorting to a new trial. However, the ruling also subjects this power to appellate review for abuse of discretion, ensuring that the increased award must be fair and supported by the evidence, as demonstrated by the court's reversal of the specific additur amount in this case.
