## Facts

- Grunenthal, a Long Island Rail Road employee and track-gang foreman, was injured when a 300-pound railroad tie being lifted fell and severely crushed his right foot.
- He sued the railroad under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking damages for his injury.
- The complaint sought $250,000, but the jury returned a verdict of $305,000; the court permitted amendment of the ad damnum to conform to the verdict.
- The railroad moved to set aside the verdict as excessive, and the district judge denied the motion after reviewing the damages evidence, finding the evidence strongly supported the jury’s award.

## Issues

1. Whether the court of appeals properly found that the district judge abused his discretion in refusing to set aside a $305,000 FELA verdict as excessive.
2. Whether the court of appeals could order a new trial unless the plaintiff accepted a remittitur reducing the verdict to $200,000 on this record.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit.
- The Court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to disturb the jury’s damages award.
- The Court concluded the court of appeals erred by ordering a conditional new trial and remittitur based on an insufficient engagement with the damages evidence.
- The case was remanded, effectively reinstating the jury’s $305,000 verdict.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of a district court’s refusal to set aside a verdict as excessive is highly deferential and limited to whether the district court abused its discretion.
- Because damages are primarily for the jury, and the trial judge observes the witnesses and evidence firsthand, appellate courts must give substantial weight to both the jury’s assessment and the trial judge’s evaluation of excessiveness.
- A finding of abuse of discretion requires more than disagreement with the size of the award; it requires a responsible review of the evidentiary record supporting the verdict.
- Conditional remittitur is improper when the record supports the verdict and the trial court’s decision to let it stand falls within the permissible range of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals exceeded the narrow bounds of appellate review by displacing the jury’s damages determination and the trial judge’s assessment without an adequate appraisal of the record, and it reinstated the FELA verdict because the district court’s denial of a new trial or remittitur was not an abuse of discretion.


Grunenthal v. Long Island Rail Road Co., 393 U.S. 156 (1968)