Remittitur: The Ultimate Guide to When and Why a Judge Can Reduce a Jury's Damage Award

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This article provides general, informational content for educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional legal advice from a qualified attorney. Always consult with a lawyer for guidance on your specific legal situation.

Imagine you're the coach of a high school football team in the championship game. In a stunning final play, your star player weaves through the entire opposing team and scores what looks like a 100-yard touchdown. The crowd goes wild, the scoreboard lights up, and your team celebrates a massive victory. But then, a flag is on the field. The referee huddles with the officials to review the play. They determine that while the run was incredible, a blatant penalty occurred back at the 50-yard line. The referee can’t erase the run entirely, but he can’t let the illegal result stand. So, he announces that the touchdown is nullified, but your team will get the ball at the 50-yard line—a significant gain, but not the game-winning score you thought you had. In the legal world, remittitur is that referee's review. The jury is like your star player, awarding a huge monetary verdict (the touchdown). The judge is the referee, who must ensure the final result follows the rules of the game—the law and the evidence. If the judge finds the jury's award was driven by “passion or prejudice” or is so excessively high that it “shocks the conscience,” they can throw a flag. They can't just change the score on their own. Instead, they offer the winning party (the plaintiff) a choice: accept a lower, more reasonable award (placing the ball at the 50-yard line), or reject it and go through a whole new trial (replaying the down). This process acts as a crucial judicial check on jury power, aiming for fairness over unrestrained emotion.

• Key Takeaways At-a-Glance:
• Remittitur is a legal procedure where a judge reduces a jury's monetary damages award because it is deemed excessive and unsupported by the evidence presented at trial. damages.
• For an ordinary person who has won a lawsuit, remittitur means the headline-grabbing verdict you were awarded isn't final until the judge approves it, and the amount you ultimately receive could be much lower. jury_trial.
• If a judge offers a remittitur, the winning party faces a critical decision: accept the lower, guaranteed payment or reject it and risk the uncertainty and expense of a completely new trial. motion_for_a_new_trial.

The concept of a judge overseeing and, if necessary, correcting a jury's work is not a modern invention. Its roots run deep into English common_law, the system the American legal framework was built upon. Early English courts recognized that while juries of one's peers were essential for justice, they were composed of human beings susceptible to emotion, bias, and error. Judges, therefore, retained the power to grant new trials if a verdict was “manifestly wrong” or against the weight of the evidence. Remittitur evolved as a practical shortcut. Instead of throwing out an entire verdict and starting from scratch—a costly and time-consuming process—courts developed a more efficient tool. In the 1822 case *Blunt v. Little*, Justice Joseph Story, a towering figure in early American law, articulated the logic. He reasoned that if a court had the power to order a completely new trial due to excessive damages, it surely had the lesser power to suggest a corrected amount that, if accepted, would avoid the need for that new trial. This practice, however, created a fundamental tension with the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The `seventh_amendment` guarantees the right to a jury trial in most civil cases and states that “no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” Opponents argued that a judge lowering a damage award was, in fact, “re-examining” a fact decided by the jury. The Supreme Court settled this debate by emphasizing the plaintiff's choice. Because the plaintiff is not *forced* to accept the lower amount and can always opt for a new trial, the core of their jury trial right remains intact. This delicate balance—judicial oversight versus the sanctity of the jury's verdict—has defined the evolution of remittitur for over 200 years.

You won't find a single “Remittitur Act” in the U.S. Code. Instead, the power of remittitur is grounded in procedural rules and judicial precedent. At the federal level, the primary authority comes from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), specifically `federal_rules_of_civil_procedure` Rule 59.

Rule 59. New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment
(a) In General. (1) Grounds for New Trial. The court may, on motion, grant a new trial on all or some of the issues—and to any party—… for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court.

In plain English, this rule gives a federal judge broad authority to order a new trial for reasons established by long-standing common law. One of the most established of these reasons is an excessive damage award from the jury. The judge uses the *threat* of granting this motion for a new trial as the leverage to offer a remittitur. The defendant files a motion asking for a new trial because the damages are too high, and the judge responds by saying, “I agree the award is too high and I will grant your motion for a new trial *unless* the plaintiff agrees to a reduced award of $X.” State courts have similar rules of civil procedure that empower their judges to do the same. The specific legal standard a judge must use to determine if an award is “excessive,” however, can vary significantly from one state to another.

The standard for applying remittitur is not uniform across the United States. The test a judge uses can determine how much deference they give to the jury's verdict. Understanding these differences is critical, as it can dramatically affect the outcome of a case.

To truly understand remittitur, you need to break it down into its three essential components. It's not a single action but a sequence of events, each with its own legal test and strategic considerations.

This is the trigger for the entire process. But what does “excessive” actually mean in a legal context? It does not simply mean “a lot of money.” A $50 million verdict for a victim left quadriplegic with a lifetime of medical expenses might be perfectly reasonable. A $1 million verdict for a minor fender bender with a sprained wrist would almost certainly be excessive. A judge will scrutinize two main categories of damages to make this determination:

• Special Damages (Economic): These are quantifiable losses like medical bills, lost wages, and future care costs. An award is excessive if the jury awards an amount far beyond what was proven with receipts, expert testimony, and financial projections. For example, if a plaintiff proved $100,000 in medical bills and lost wages, a jury award of $5 million for those specific economic losses would be unsupported by the evidence.
• General Damages (Non-Economic): This is where things get subjective. These damages compensate for intangible harms like `pain_and_suffering`, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life. Because there's no price tag on suffering, juries have wide latitude. A judge will declare this portion excessive only if it has no rational relationship to the evidence of the plaintiff's suffering or if it “shocks the conscience.” They often look at awards in comparable cases to see if the verdict is a wild outlier.

A judge doesn't wake up one morning and decide to slash a jury's verdict. The process is initiated by the losing party (the defendant). After the jury delivers its verdict, the defendant's attorney will file a `post-trial_motion`, typically titled a “Motion for a New Trial or, in the Alternative, for Remittitur.” In this motion, the defense attorney will argue that the trial was flawed. One of the most common arguments is that the jury's damage award was excessive. They will point to the trial record and attempt to persuade the judge that the award was a product of emotion—perhaps inflamed by the plaintiff's attorney's closing argument—rather than a sober assessment of the facts. This motion is what gives the judge the legal authority to act.

This is the procedural heart of remittitur and what makes it constitutional. The judge does not have the power to unilaterally change the jury's verdict. Instead, the judge issues a conditional order. It essentially says:

“I have reviewed the defendant's motion and I agree that the jury's award of $10 million is excessive. The evidence can only support an award of $3 million. Therefore, I am ordering a new trial. HOWEVER, if the plaintiff agrees, in writing, within [a set number of days], to accept a reduced judgment of $3 million, the motion for a new trial will be denied.”

This puts the plaintiff and their attorney at a crossroads. They won the case, but now they face a difficult, high-stakes choice:

• Option A: Accept the Remittitur. This provides certainty. The plaintiff gets the reduced amount without further delay or risk.
• Option B: Reject the Remittitur. This sends the case to a completely new trial on the issue of damages (or sometimes on the entire case). The next jury could award more than the original verdict, the same, less, or even find in favor of the defendant, resulting in zero dollars. It is a massive gamble.

• The Trial Judge: The ultimate arbiter. The judge's role is to act as a legal backstop, ensuring that the jury's verdict, while given great respect, remains within the bounds of the law and the evidence. They must balance the constitutional right to a jury trial with their duty to prevent miscarriages of justice.
• The Jury: The “finder of fact.” Their constitutional role is to listen to the evidence, determine liability, and calculate the damages they believe will fairly compensate the plaintiff.
• The Plaintiff & Plaintiff's Attorney: Having won the verdict, their goal is to keep as much of it as possible. They will file a response to the defendant's motion, arguing that the jury's award was rational, supported by the evidence, and should be respected.
• The Defendant & Defendant's Attorney: Having lost the case, their goal is to pay as little as possible. They are the ones who file the motion for remittitur, arguing that the jury was swayed by emotion and that the award is legally indefensible.

If you are a plaintiff who has won a large jury verdict, the fight may not be over. Facing a motion for remittitur can be disorienting and stressful. Here is a step-by-step guide to what you can expect.

A jury verdict in your favor is a monumental victory and a moment of validation. However, it's crucial to understand from your attorney that this is not the final step. The defendant almost always files post-trial motions, and a motion for remittitur is standard practice in cases with large damage awards.

Your attorney will receive the defendant's “Motion for a New Trial or Remittitur.” Sit down with your lawyer and have them explain it to you in plain English. What is the defense claiming?

• Are they arguing that the economic damages (like medical bills) are not supported by the evidence?
• Are they arguing that the non-economic damages (for `pain_and_suffering`) are the main problem?
• Are they citing other court cases (precedent) where awards for similar injuries were much lower?

Your attorney will write and file an “Opposition” to the defendant's motion. This legal brief is your chance to defend the jury's verdict. Your lawyer will meticulously go through the trial transcript, pointing to every piece of evidence that justifies the award: your testimony, the testimony of your family members about how the injury changed your life, your doctor's prognosis, the economist's report on your lost future earnings, etc. Your role is to be available to your attorney to clarify any facts or details from the trial.

If the judge decides to grant the remittitur, they will issue a written order explaining their reasoning and stating the new, lower amount. This is the most critical document to analyze. A good judge will clearly explain *why* they believe the original award was excessive and *how* they arrived at the new number. Understanding this reasoning is key to making your decision.

This is a strategic business decision that you must make with the close counsel of your attorney. There is no single right answer. You must weigh the pros and cons:

1. Accepting the Remittitur:
   • Pro: You receive a substantial, guaranteed sum of money now (or after any appeals on liability are resolved).
   • Pro: You avoid the immense stress, time, and emotional toll of a second trial.
   • Con: You are accepting less money than a jury of your peers believed you deserved.
2. Rejecting the Remittitur (Opting for a New Trial):
   • Pro: You preserve the chance to get the original large award, or perhaps even more, from a new jury.
   • Con: It is a huge risk. The new jury could award you less money than the remitted amount. They could even award you zero.
   • Con: A new trial is incredibly expensive. Legal fees and expert witness costs will mount, reducing your potential net recovery. It could also be years before the new trial is completed.

The rules governing remittitur today were not created in a vacuum. They were forged in courtroom battles that often reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

• The Backstory: A plaintiff won a meager $500 in a personal injury case. The trial judge found the award inadequate and, using a reverse-remittitur process called `additur`, ordered a new trial unless the defendant agreed to pay $1,500.
• The Legal Question: Is additur, where a judge increases a jury's award, constitutional in federal court?
• The Court's Holding: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court said no. The Court drew a fine line, reasoning that while remittitur had a basis in English common law (the standard set by the `seventh_amendment`), additur did not. With remittitur, the judge is merely cutting away the “unlawful excess” from the jury's verdict. With additur, the judge is essentially creating a damage award from whole cloth that no jury ever awarded.
• Impact on You Today: This case firmly establishes that in federal court, judicial power over a jury's verdict is a one-way street. A judge can lower an excessive award (with the plaintiff's consent), but they cannot raise an inadequate one. This protects defendants from being forced to pay an amount a jury never authorized.

• The Backstory: A journalist was awarded $450,000 by a federal jury for the loss of his photo transparencies, an amount calculated under New York state law. The defendant argued the award was excessive under New York's specific standard, which allows for greater judicial review than the federal “shocks the conscience” test.
• The Legal Question: When a federal court is hearing a case based on state law, should it apply the state's standard for remittitur or the more deferential federal standard?
• The Court's Holding: The Supreme Court found that the federal court should apply the New York state standard. The Court reasoned that the state's standard was a matter of substantive law, not just procedure, and federal courts must respect state law in such cases to prevent different outcomes for plaintiffs just because they are in federal court.
• Impact on You Today: *Gasperini* means that the standard for reducing a jury award can depend on the courthouse you are in. It harmonized the system to ensure that the substantive rights of litigants under state law are protected even when their case is heard by a federal judge.

• The Backstory: This is the infamous “hot coffee” case. Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman, suffered third-degree burns after spilling McDonald's coffee on her lap. The evidence at trial showed McDonald's knew of hundreds of prior burn injuries from its excessively hot coffee (served 40-50 degrees hotter than home-brewed coffee) and had done nothing. The jury awarded her $200,000 in `compensatory_damages` (reduced to $160,000 for her own fault) and a whopping $2.7 million in `punitive_damages` to punish McDonald's.
• The Legal Question (at the trial level): Was the $2.7 million punitive damage award excessive?
• The Judge's Ruling: The trial judge agreed the punitive award was excessive, despite McDonald's egregious conduct. He applied remittitur and reduced the punitive damages to $480,000 (three times the compensatory damages).
• Impact on You Today: This case is the most famous real-world example of remittitur in action. It shows how a headline-grabbing, seemingly astronomical jury award that enters the public consciousness is often not the final amount paid. It demonstrates a judge's role in moderating a jury's outrage and ensuring that even punitive damages bear a reasonable relationship to the actual harm caused.

The debate over remittitur is a central front in the larger political and legal war over `tort_reform`.

• Proponents of Tort Reform: These groups, often including insurance companies and large corporations, argue that “runaway juries” and “jackpot justice” are crippling businesses. They contend that judges should use remittitur more aggressively and that state legislatures should impose hard caps on non-economic damages, making the remittitur analysis even stricter. They believe this reduces legal uncertainty and keeps costs down for consumers.
• Opponents of Tort Reform: These groups, typically consumer advocates and plaintiff's attorneys, argue that the `seventh_amendment` right to a jury trial is sacred. They see aggressive remittitur and damage caps as an infringement on the jury's role to express a community's moral outrage at a defendant's conduct and to fully compensate grievously injured victims. They argue that the fear of a large verdict is a powerful incentive for corporations to make safer products.

This debate plays out in state legislatures and courtrooms across the country, with the power and discretion of judges in applying remittitur at the very center of the controversy.

The legal landscape is constantly shifting, and two trends are poised to impact the use of remittitur:

• “Nuclear” Verdicts: In recent years, there has been a documented rise in so-called “nuclear verdicts”—jury awards exceeding $10 million. Some legal strategists believe this is due to a growing sense of societal anger at corporate misconduct and a desensitization to large numbers. As these verdicts become more common, defense attorneys will increasingly rely on remittitur as their primary tool to bring these awards back to earth, leading to more frequent and more intense post-trial battles.
• Social Media and Public Outrage: In the past, a jury was largely insulated. Today, high-profile cases can become viral sensations, with public opinion solidifying long before a trial ends. There is a growing concern that this ambient social media outrage could seep into the jury room, leading to awards based on “passion or prejudice.” This could lead to judges scrutinizing large verdicts even more closely and using remittitur to counteract what they perceive as media-fueled, rather than evidence-based, decision-making.

• additur: A procedure where a judge increases a jury's damage award, deemed unconstitutional in U.S. federal courts.
• appeal: A request for a higher court to review a lower court's decision.
• common_law: Law derived from judicial decisions and precedent, rather than from statutes.
• compensatory_damages: Money awarded to a plaintiff to compensate for actual losses (e.g., medical bills, lost wages).
• damages: A monetary award granted to a person as compensation for loss or injury.
• defendant: The party being sued in a civil lawsuit.
• due_process: The legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person.
• motion_for_a_new_trial: A formal request made by a party asking a judge to nullify a verdict and order a new trial.
• pain_and_suffering: The physical and emotional distress for which a person can seek damages in a lawsuit.
• plaintiff: The party who initiates a lawsuit.
• post-trial_motion: A motion filed by a party after a jury has returned a verdict.
• punitive_damages: Damages exceeding simple compensation and awarded to punish the defendant for egregious conduct.
• seventh_amendment: The amendment to the U.S. Constitution that codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases.
• tort_reform: A political movement aimed at changing the civil justice system to reduce litigation and cap damage awards.
• verdict: The formal finding of fact made by a jury on matters or questions submitted to them at a trial.

• damages
• motion_for_a_new_trial
• jury_trial
• seventh_amendment
• punitive_damages
• additur
• federal_rules_of_civil_procedure