Kenton v. Hyatt Hotels Corp.
693 S.W.2d 83 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The judicial doctrine of remittitur, which allows a court to reduce a jury's damage award it deems excessive, is abolished in the state of Missouri. Evidence of the traumatic circumstances of an event is admissible to prove the nature and extent of a plaintiff's physical and mental injuries, even when liability is not contested.
Facts:
- On July 17, 1981, Kay Kenton was present in the lobby of the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Kansas City, Missouri.
- Two suspended skywalks, with each 30-foot section weighing approximately 17,960 pounds, collapsed into the hotel lobby.
- Kenton was pinned underneath the fallen skywalks amidst rubble, blood, and the bodies of other victims.
- Prior to the incident, Kenton was a student who had completed two years of law school.
- As a result of the collapse, Kenton suffered a broken neck with permanent spinal cord damage, causing spasticity in all four limbs and requiring her to use crutches to walk.
- Kenton was diagnosed with severe and chronic post-traumatic stress disorder due to the traumatic event.
- Her permanent injuries also included impaired bladder and bowel function, loss of sensation, and the destruction of her previously athletic lifestyle.
Procedural Posture:
- Kay Kenton sued the appellants in a Missouri trial court to recover compensatory damages for her injuries.
- Appellants stipulated before trial that they would not contest liability for compensatory damages.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Kenton for $4,000,000.
- On post-trial motions, the trial court found the verdict excessive and ordered a new trial unless Kenton agreed to a remittitur of $250,000, reducing the award to $3,750,000.
- Kenton accepted the remittitur.
- Appellants appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, seeking a larger remittitur, and Kenton cross-appealed, seeking reinstatement of the full verdict.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Court of Appeals then transferred the case to the Supreme Court of Missouri for a final decision as on original appeal.
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 judicial doctrine of remittitur, which allows a trial court to reduce a jury's compensatory damage award it deems excessive, remain valid in Missouri?
Opinions:
Majority - Robert G. Dowd, Special Judge.
No. The judicial doctrine of remittitur is abolished in Missouri. Relying on the companion case of Firestone v. Crown Center Redevelopment Corporation, the court concluded that the practice of a judge reducing a jury's damage award shall no longer be employed. The court characterized the trial judge's reduction of a $4,000,000 verdict by $250,000 as 'judicial hairsplitting' that demonstrates the flaws in the remittitur practice. Therefore, the jury's original $4,000,000 verdict must be reinstated. The court also held that evidence depicting the horrific scene of the collapse—including photographs, videos, and eyewitness testimony—was properly admitted. Even though defendants admitted liability, this evidence was highly relevant to prove the nature and extent of Kenton's injuries, particularly her severe post-traumatic stress disorder, and its probative value outweighed any potential for unfair prejudice. Furthermore, testimony from law professors regarding Kenton's inability to complete law school or practice law was admissible expert testimony, as they were experts on the rigors of the legal profession, not impermissibly giving medical opinions.
Analysis:
This decision marked a monumental shift in Missouri tort law by completely abolishing the long-standing judicial practice of remittitur. The ruling significantly enhances the power and finality of a jury's determination of damages, limiting a defendant's recourse against a large verdict to proving trial error rather than simply challenging the amount as excessive. It reinforces the jury's role as the primary fact-finder for damages and curtails judicial authority to substitute its own judgment for the jury's. The case also affirms the principle that evidence of traumatic circumstances is relevant to proving the extent of psychological injuries, even when the defendant concedes liability.
Unlock the full brief for Kenton v. Hyatt Hotels Corp.