Legal Definitions - excessive verdict

An excessive verdict occurs when a jury's decision, particularly regarding the amount of money awarded, is so unreasonably high that it suggests the jury was influenced by factors other than the evidence presented and the applicable law. This kind of verdict "shocks the conscience" of the court because it appears to be based on emotion, prejudice, or speculation rather than a fair assessment of the facts.

When a court determines a verdict is excessive, it often means the financial compensation awarded significantly surpasses what would typically be given in similar cases. In such situations, a judge may reduce the award to a more appropriate amount, ensuring the judgment aligns with legal standards and the evidence presented during the trial.

Here are some examples illustrating an excessive verdict:

• Imagine a lawsuit where a small, local bakery is sued for a minor slip-and-fall injury that resulted in a sprained ankle for the customer. Despite medical bills totaling a few thousand dollars and a short recovery period, the jury awards the customer $5 million in damages. The court might deem this an excessive verdict because the monetary award is vastly disproportionate to the actual injury and financial losses, suggesting the jury may have been overly sympathetic to the customer or perhaps harbored a general dislike for businesses, rather than strictly evaluating the evidence of damages.

• Consider a product liability case where a large, well-known pharmaceutical company is found liable for a defect in one of its non-life-threatening medications, causing moderate side effects for a plaintiff. The jury, aware of the company's vast wealth and previous controversies unrelated to this specific case, awards the plaintiff $20 million in punitive damages, in addition to reasonable compensatory damages. A judge might review this as an excessive verdict for punitive damages, concluding that the jury's decision was likely swayed by public sentiment against the large corporation rather than a strict application of the legal criteria for punitive awards, which require egregious misconduct directly related to the harm.

• In a defamation lawsuit, a public figure sues a local blogger for false statements that caused some reputational harm but no significant financial loss. The jury, composed of individuals who strongly dislike the public figure's political views, awards the plaintiff $10 million in damages. The court could identify this as an excessive verdict because the amount awarded far exceeds any demonstrable harm suffered by the plaintiff and appears to reflect the jury's personal bias against the plaintiff's public persona rather than an objective assessment of the defamation's impact.