Dimick v. Schiedt

Background

A person injured in a Massachusetts car accident sued the driver in federal court for negligence. A jury awarded $500. The injured person asked for a new trial, saying the damages were too small. The trial judge said he would order a new trial unless the driver agreed to increase the award to $1,500. The driver agreed, so the judge denied the new trial and the case went to appeal.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether a judge may end a plaintiff’s right to a jury verdict by conditioning denial of a new trial on a defendant’s agreement to increase damages. The majority examined English common-law practice as of 1791 and found no settled authority for courts to increase jury awards in ordinary personal-injury cases. The Court concluded that increasing an award in this way would deprive the plaintiff of a jury determination of facts and thus violate the Seventh Amendment. The opinion distinguished the long-accepted practice of remittitur (letting a plaintiff reduce an excessive award) from any power to add to a jury’s award.

Real world impact

The ruling bars federal trial judges from using a conditional increase of a jury’s damages award (often called "additur") to avoid a new trial. Plaintiffs remain entitled to have damages assessed by a jury, and defendants cannot be forced, as a condition for denying a new trial, to accept a larger award judged by the court. The decision leaves remittitur (reducing excessive awards) as a separate, recognized practice.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stone dissented, arguing judges should be allowed to deny new trials when a defendant consents to increase damages, stressing flexibility of common law and efficiency in avoiding costly retrials.