## Facts

- A catastrophic collapse of suspended walkways at a Kansas City hotel caused numerous injuries; Sally Firestone was severely injured.
- Firestone sued Crown Center Redevelopment Corporation and related entities associated with the hotel’s ownership/operation.
- A jury awarded Firestone $15,000,000 in compensatory damages.
- The trial court ordered a new trial unless Firestone accepted a $2,250,000 reduction, reasoning the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
- Firestone filed the remittitur, and the trial court entered judgment for $12,750,000.
- Defendants appealed, arguing trial error, improper venue due to pretrial publicity, and excessiveness of the award (seeking a new trial or further reduction).
- Firestone sought reinstatement of the remitted amount on appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the jury’s $15,000,000 verdict was excessive or against the weight of the evidence such that a new trial or reduction was required.
2. Whether Missouri should continue to permit remittitur as a conditional device to deny a new trial.
3. Whether, under Missouri Rule 78.10, the plaintiff was entitled to restoration of the amount remitted after a conditional new-trial order.
4. Whether pretrial publicity required a change of venue to ensure a fair trial.
5. Whether defendants demonstrated reversible error in evidentiary rulings, instructions, or other trial management decisions.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the verdict and directed the trial court to vacate the remittitur order, reinstate the full $15,000,000 verdict, and enter judgment in that amount.
- The court held the remittitur order was improper because the verdict was supported by the evidence.
- The court abolished the doctrine of remittitur in Missouri, directing trial courts to address excessive or unsupported verdicts through the grant of a new trial under Rule 78 rather than conditional reductions.
- The court rejected the request for a change of venue, finding defendants did not show prejudice preventing a fair and impartial trial.
- The court found no reversible error in the remaining claims of trial error.

## Legal Principles

- When a verdict is claimed to be against the weight of the evidence or excessive, the remedy is a new trial (including a new trial limited to damages where appropriate), not a conditional reduction of the verdict through remittitur.
- Missouri Rule 78 preserves broad trial-court discretion to grant a new trial for good cause and permits one new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.
- Under Missouri Rule 78.10, when an appellate court concludes a conditional remittitur/new-trial order was unwarranted, the plaintiff may obtain reinstatement of the remitted amount.
- A change of venue based on pretrial publicity is not required absent a showing that prejudice was so substantial that a fair trial could not be obtained in the original venue.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated Firestone’s full $15,000,000 verdict, restored the amount previously remitted, rejected challenges based on venue and other trial errors, and eliminated remittitur in Missouri in favor of the new-trial mechanism under Rule 78 for addressing excessive or unsupported verdicts.


Firestone v. Crown Ctr. Redevelopment Corp., 693 S.W.2d 99 (Mo. 1985) (en banc)