Remittitur

What Is Remittitur?

Remittitur is a conditional reduction. After the jury returns a verdict, the losing defendant moves for a new trial, arguing among other things that the damages are excessive. If the judge agrees that the award is beyond what the evidence supports, the judge may order a new trial outright or may offer the plaintiff a choice: accept judgment for a reduced amount the judge names, or go through a second trial on damages. The plaintiff who accepts “remits” the excess, and judgment is entered for the lower figure.

The judge is not substituting a personal opinion for the jury’s. The standard asks whether the verdict is so disproportionate to the evidence that it appears to have been produced by passion or prejudice, and the reduced figure is meant to be the highest amount the evidence reasonably supports, not the amount the judge would have awarded. A plaintiff who declines the reduction keeps the right to a new jury.

How Does North Carolina Rule 59 Govern Remittitur And Additur?

Through the new-trial motion. N.C. R. Civ. P. 59 lists the grounds on which a court may grant a new trial on all or part of the issues. Two of them drive remittitur and additur: excessive or inadequate damages appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice, and insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict. Because the rule allows a new trial on part of the issues, the judge can limit the retrial to damages and leave the liability verdict intact.

The timing is tight. A motion for a new trial must be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, and a motion to alter or amend the judgment carries the same 10-day limit. The court may also order a new trial on its own initiative within 10 days, stating the grounds. North Carolina courts have long used the conditional form of the ruling, denying the new trial if the plaintiff accepts a stated reduction. Whether a particular judge will use additur, increasing an inadequate award with the defendant’s consent, rather than simply ordering a new trial on damages is a case-specific question; the more common route for an inadequate verdict in North Carolina is the new trial itself, and an injured person facing that situation should confirm the options with an attorney.

How Is Remittitur Different From A Statutory Damages Cap?

Remittitur is discretionary and conditional; a cap is mandatory and automatic. North Carolina has two caps that reduce verdicts without any finding of passion or prejudice. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-25, punitive damages may not exceed three times the compensatory damages or $250,000, whichever is greater; if the jury returns more, the trial court reduces the award and enters judgment for the maximum. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-21.19, noneconomic damages in a medical malpractice action are limited to a base of $500,000 adjusted for inflation, with an exception where the plaintiff suffered disfigurement, loss of use of part of the body, permanent injury, or death and the defendant’s conduct was reckless, grossly negligent, fraudulent, intentional, or malicious.

Neither cap is disclosed to the jury. The jury returns the figure the evidence supports; the judge applies the statute afterward. The plaintiff has no choice to make and no new trial to take; the reduction is simply the law. Remittitur, by contrast, is a judgment call about a particular verdict, and the plaintiff can refuse it. Ordinary compensatory damages in a North Carolina injury case are not capped at all, so for a car, truck, or fall case the only post-verdict reduction available to the defense is the discretionary one.

• Remittitur: judge’s discretion, plaintiff’s choice, standard of passion or prejudice.
• Punitive cap (§ 1D-25): automatic; greater of three times compensatory damages or $250,000.
• Malpractice cap (§ 90-21.19): automatic; inflation-adjusted base of $500,000 with a stated exception.
• Compensatory damages generally: no cap in North Carolina.

What Does Remittitur Look Like In A North Carolina Injury Case?

A worked example: Elena, a Winston-Salem nurse, is hit by a tractor-trailer and suffers a spinal injury that ends her career. The jury awards $2.4 million in compensatory damages. The trucking company moves for a new trial under Rule 59 within 10 days, arguing the figure is excessive and reflects the jury’s reaction to the driver’s falsified logbook. The judge reviews the evidence of Elena’s medical costs, lost earnings over a 25-year career, and permanent limitations, concludes that the verdict is high but supported, and denies the motion. Had the judge found the award beyond what the evidence supported, the order would have offered Elena a choice: accept, for instance, $1.8 million, or retry damages before a new jury.

The plaintiff’s decision is strategic. A second trial costs time, money, and the risk of a lower verdict; accepting the reduced amount ends the case. Defendants know this, which is why the motion is filed in nearly every large verdict. The best protection is a trial record that ties every dollar to evidence, so that the verdict looks like arithmetic rather than anger.

Why Does Contributory Negligence Matter To Remittitur In North Carolina?

Because remittitur presupposes a damages verdict, and in North Carolina many cases never produce one. Contributory negligence is the rule that an injured person whose own negligence contributed to the injury recovers nothing; under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-139 the defendant must prove it, and if the jury finds it, the verdict is zero. There is nothing to remit. The defense therefore has two very different post-verdict positions: a case lost on contributory negligence ends outright, while a case won by the plaintiff moves to the fight over the size of the award.

That structure shapes trial strategy. A defendant who sees a strong damages case may concentrate on contributory negligence, because a finding on that issue is worth more than any reduction a judge might later order. A plaintiff’s lawyer prepares both fronts: evidence that the injured person did nothing to contribute, and a damages presentation disciplined enough to survive a Rule 59 motion. The verdict that holds up is the one built on both.