Tennessee § 20-10-101 - Additur.

§ 20-10-101. Additur.

In cases where, in the opinion of the trial judge, a jury verdict is not adequate to compensate the plaintiff or plaintiffs in compensatory damages or punitive damages, the trial judge may suggest an additur in such amount or amounts as the trial judge deems proper to the compensatory or punitive damages awarded by the jury, or both such classes of damages. If the additur is accepted by the defense, it shall then be ordered by the trial judge and become the verdict, and if not accepted, the trial judge shall grant the plaintiff's motion for a new trial because of the inadequacy of the verdict upon proper motion being made by the plaintiff. In all jury trials had in civil actions, after the verdict has been rendered and on motion for a new trial, when the trial judge is of the opinion that the verdict in favor of a party should be increased and an additur is suggested by the trial judge on that account, with the proviso that in case the party against whom the verdict has been rendered refuses to make the additur, a new trial will be awarded, the party against whom such verdict has been rendered may make such additur under protest, and appeal from the action of the trial judge to the court of appeals. The court of appeals shall review the action of the trial court suggesting an additur using the standard of review provided for in T.R.A.P. 13(d) applicable to decisions of the trial court sitting without a jury. If the court of appeals is of the opinion that the verdict of the jury should not have been increased or that the amount of the additur is improper, but that the judgment of the trial court is correct in all other respects, the case shall be reversed to that extent, and the court of appeals may order remitted all or any part of the additur. Acts 1969, ch. 137, § 1; 1970, ch. 590, § 1; T.C.A., § 20-1330; Acts 1987, ch. 232, § 1. Textbooks. Tennessee Forms (Robinson, Ramsey and Harwell), No. 1-59.02-2. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 2 Tenn. Juris., Appeal and Error, §§ 258, 259; 9 Tenn. Juris., Damages, §§ 25, 41, 51; 20 Tenn. Juris., New Trials, § 16. Law Reviews. Family Law — Alexander v. Inman: The Tennessee Court of Appeals Establishes Guidelines for Contingent Attorneys' Fees in Domestic Relation Cases, 26 U. Mem. L. Rev. 1575 (1996). Moving to Comparative Negligence in an Era of Tort Reform: Decisions for Tennessee (Carol A. Mutter), 57 Tenn. L. Rev. 199 (1990). Paine on Procedure: Remittitur and Additur (Donald F. Paine), 42 Tenn B.J. 25 (2006). Torts — Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co.: New Substantive and Procedural Changes in the Awarding of Punitive Damages in Tennessee, 23 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 239 (1992). A Distinction Without a Difference: Revisiting the Constitutionality of Additur in Federal Courts, 48 U. Mem. L. Rev. 625 (2017). Comparative Legislation. Additur and remittitur: Ala. R.C.P. 59(f). Ark. Code §§ 16-64-124 , 16-19-802 . Ga. O.C.G.A. § 5-6-10 et seq. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-55 . Cited: Smith v. Williams, 575 S.W.2d 503, 1978 Tenn. App. LEXIS 321, 9 A.L.R.4th 1033 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1978); Owen v. Locke, 650 S.W.2d 51, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 558 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983); Long v. Mattingly, 797 S.W.2d 889, 1990 Tenn. App. LEXIS 450 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990); Alexander v. Inman, 903 S.W.2d 686, 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 70 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995); Palanki v. Vanderbilt Univ., 215 S.W.3d 380, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 731 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006); Meals v. Ford Motor Co., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 234 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2012); Gaw v. Vanderbilt Univ., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 255 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2012); Johnson v. Beverly Nunis & Farmer's Ins. Exch., 383 S.W.3d 122, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 277 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2012).