## Facts

- A family home fire was found to have been ignited by a defective heater associated with Sears and related defendants.
- The family’s infant daughter, Helen, suffered catastrophic burns, including severe third-degree burns and permanent disfigurement and disability.
- Helen sustained burns over roughly 40% of her body, including extensive third-degree burns to her scalp, and required an extended hospitalization with serious complications.
- Treatment included blood transfusions, skin grafts, and additional procedures to address scarring and deformities affecting her hands and arm; scarring impaired movement and function.
- The injuries were permanent and expected to require substantial future medical care and repeated operations, along with psychological care for trauma-related effects.
- After an eight-day jury trial, the jury awarded $2,000,000 in compensatory damages for Helen’s injuries.
- Defendants sought a new trial or, alternatively, remittitur, arguing the award was excessive and was influenced by photographs and the child’s presence in court.

## Issues

1. Whether the $2,000,000 compensatory damages verdict exceeded the maximum amount a reasonable jury could award on the evidence, requiring remittitur or a new trial under the maximum recovery rule.
2. Whether photographs of the injuries and the child’s presence in the courtroom improperly prejudiced the jury so as to require a new trial or reduction of the award.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion for a new trial and denied remittitur.
- Applying the maximum recovery rule, the court concluded the evidence could support a maximum reasonable award of approximately $2,980,000, making the $2,000,000 verdict permissible.
- The court rejected claims of undue prejudice from photographs and the child’s courtroom presence, finding the evidence relevant to disfigurement damages and no showing that the verdict resulted from passion or prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- Under the maximum recovery rule, a court may reduce a jury’s damages award only if it exceeds the maximum amount a reasonable jury could award based on the evidence.
- In evaluating excessiveness, the court scrutinizes the evidence by elements of damages, including past and future pain and suffering, future medical expenses, loss of earning capacity, and permanent disability/disfigurement.
- Judicial review of damages is constrained by deference to the jury’s fact-finding role; the court does not substitute its preferred award for the jury’s.
- Photographs depicting injuries may be admissible and non-prejudicial when probative of claimed damages such as disfigurement and humiliation.
- A party seeking a new trial based on alleged jury inflamation must show that trial events actually produced an improper verdict driven by passion or prejudice rather than evidence.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a $2,000,000 compensatory verdict for an infant’s severe burn injuries, holding that the award fell within the maximum recovery supported by the record and was not rendered invalid by the use of injury photographs or the child’s presence at trial.


Anderson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 377 F. Supp. 136 (E.D. La. 1974)