## Facts

- Joe H. Dial and David L. Hudnall suffered catastrophic burn injuries in an automobile collision followed by a vehicle fire.
- Dial, an active electrical engineer and researcher, sustained severe burns to his face, throat, mouth, neck, shoulders, and back, with permanent disfigurement and recurrent, painful debridement and skin-graft treatment.
- Dial’s burns produced thick scar tissue, long-term vulnerability to injury and infection, and increased risk of cancer; additional surgeries were anticipated and lifelong pain was expected.
- Dial also sustained a brain injury affecting personality, temperament, and intellect, leading to fear of appearing in public and the need for psychiatric care.
- Hudnall sustained severe burns requiring repeated debridement and skin grafts, leaving permanent scarring, vulnerability to injury and infection, increased cancer risk, and expected future surgeries over his lifetime.
- Hudnall’s injuries limited normal activities, including playing with his child and backpacking.
- A jury awarded $3,500,000 to the Dials and $401,750 to the Hudnalls; defendants emphasized that estimated economic damages were substantially lower and argued the remainder was excessive non-economic damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the jury’s damage awards were so excessive as to show passion or prejudice, requiring a new trial or remittitur.
2. Whether non-economic damages must bear a defined proportional relationship to proven economic (special) damages.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying defendants’ post-trial motion for a new trial or remittitur.

## Decision

- The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments.
- The court held the verdicts were not so excessive as to indicate passion or prejudice and did not “shock the conscience.”
- The court rejected any rule requiring a fixed ratio between special damages and general damages.
- The court held the trial judge did not abuse discretion in refusing to grant a new trial or order remittitur.

## Legal Principles

- Non-economic damages (pain, suffering, disfigurement, and similar harms) have no mechanical or fixed calculation; their assessment is primarily for the jury.
- Appellate interference with a damages award is warranted only when the award is grossly excessive—so unreasonable as to shock the conscience or clearly indicate passion, prejudice, or corruption.
- No legal rule requires general damages to be proportionate to special damages; large general-damage awards may be justified by devastating, permanent injuries.
- A trial court’s denial of remittitur or a new trial is entitled to substantial deference because the trial judge observed the evidence and witnesses; reversal requires a clear abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The court upheld substantial personal-injury verdicts for catastrophic burns and associated long-term physical and psychological harm, holding that general damages need not track economic losses by any set ratio and that remittitur or a new trial is appropriate only when the award is so extreme it shows passion or prejudice or shocks the conscience.


Wry v. Dial, 503 P.2d 979 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972)