MING YU HE v. ENILMA MILLER
A-5685-07T3 12-15-09
In earlier proceedings, the court reversed an order
granting a remittitur of the pain and suffering and per quod
components of a jury verdict. The Supreme Court reversed in
part and remanded to the trial judge for a complete and
searching analysis including a factual analysis of how the award
here was different or similar to others to which it was
compared. The trial judge thereafter considered two verdicts
produced by trials over which he presided, as well as verdicts
emanating from other courts, and adhered to his earlier ruling
that the award was excessive.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court's mandate, the court
reconsidered its earlier decision and found the trial judge's
analysis of the verdicts in other cases was inadequate and
inconsistent with the applicable jurisprudence. The court
concluded that -- although high and perhaps overly-generous -- a
pain and suffering award of $1,000,000 for a permanent injury
incurred by the forty-six year old plaintiff, who sustained four
herniated discs as a result of the defendant's negligence, was
not so wide of the mark as to constitute a manifest miscarriage
of justice.
