A plaintiff in a breach of contract case was awarded a substantial jury verdict. After the trial, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the jury’s damages award was contrary to the clear weight of the evidence and was excessively high. Under federal procedural rules, what is a court required to consider when deciding whether to grant a new trial based on excessive damages?
Whether the damages award is larger than similar damage awards in prior cases involving comparable facts
Whether the defendant argued the issue of damages improperly during trial
Whether the jury’s damages award shocks the conscience of the court due to its excessiveness
Whether the jury adhered to the plaintiff’s specific demands as requested during closing arguments
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 provides that a court may grant a new trial for various reasons, including if the damages awarded by the jury are against the clear weight of the evidence or are excessive. In such circumstances, courts often apply the 'shocks the conscience' standard, meaning the award must be so excessive that it shocks the conscience of the court. The court does not focus on minor disagreements with the jury but looks for significant deviations from what would be fair compensation. Answers that suggest a rigid comparison to precedent or specific amounts reflect a misunderstanding of the broader discretion courts have in this matter.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does the 'shocks the conscience' standard mean in legal terms?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are some factors that might influence a court's decision on whether an award is excessive?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does the federal rule for a new trial differ from state rules in breach of contract cases?