What is “Additur” in a Motor Vehicle Accident Case?
A Georgia auto accident victim appealed a trial court’s denial of his motion for additur after judgment was entered on the jury’s verdict. The plaintiff asserted that the trial court erred by denying his motion based on a grossly inadequate verdict.
Additur is a process whereby a judge increases the amount of damages awarded by a jury. This can happen when the judge believes that the jury’s award is insufficient based on the evidence presented during the trial. Additur is typically offered as an alternative to a new trial and lets the defendant agree to the increased amount instead of facing a retrial.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that additur violates the Seventh Amendment and isn’t permissible in federal courts; however, some state courts like Georgia permit additur.
Background
In October 2018, the plaintiff owned and operated a transportation company and was driving a delivery van on Interstate 20 to pick up a load for his business. He was in heavy stop-and-go traffic and was at a complete stop with no one behind him when a vehicle crashed into the back of his van. He testified that the impact pushed his van into the vehicle in front of him, causing his glasses to fly off his face, his knee to hit the gear box, his shoulder to hit the door, and a large cloud of smoke to come from the rear of his van. His air bag, however, didn’t deploy.
The vehicle that crashed into the plaintiff was owned by a die cutting business and driven by its employee. The driver admitted at trial that he caused the collision and that he received a citation for the accident. A week after the accident, the plaintiff went to a chiropractor and, throughout his treatment, reported that his pain was improving. In fact, by December 2018, the plaintiff indicated that his percentage of improvement was 70%, and a month later, he said his improvement was 80%.
The plaintiff said that his shoulder and knee pain resolved within a few months, but his back pain continued to worsen, and he testified that he has undergone treatment for the past five years as a result of the collision. But he admitted at trial that he didn’t schedule any medical treatment from July 2019 through August 2021. He claimed he was weighing whether to have a procedure done, but couldn’t point to any records noting a potential procedure; according to the plaintiff, it might have been “a verbal conversation” with the doctor.
In June 2020, the plaintiff sued the business, the employee driver, and both their insurance companies for his injuries and damages. More than two years since his last treatment and eight months after his deposition was taken, he saw an orthopedic physician who testified that the plaintiff gave him a medical history that included treatment in June 2021 for kidney stones and procedures with a neurologist and treatment in 2015 for a prior motor vehicle collision where he injured his lower back and visited a chiropractor six times. At trial, the plaintiff denied any prior lower back injury and intimated that doctor at the orthopedic clinic “made it up.”
In the examination, the orthopedic physician noted that the plaintiff had some restrictions in his lower back range of motion and tenderness over some discs. He reviewed an MRI taken in February 2019 (three months after the auto collision) and noted that it showed herniated discs, disc degeneration (arthritis), and degenerative bone spurs. According to the doctor, the plaintiff’s degeneration wasn’t caused by trauma and would continue to worsen and be painful without any trauma. Also, the bone spurs in his back started to develop well before the collision. Also, the doctor said that the accident did cause the plaintiff’s disc herniations and recommended epidural injections or spinal fusion surgery.
A defense expert testified that the bulging discs depicted on the plaintiff’s February 2019 MRI were caused by degenerative disc disease and not trauma. Specifically, he stated that the MRI showed that the plaintiff suffered from a chronic herniated disc that had been there for years, and there was no evidence of any acute injury as a result of the car crash.
According to the plaintiff, the cost of his treatments exceeded $100,000. Of that amount, $73,000 was incurred three years after the collision when the plaintiff was treated at the orthopedic clinic. He also testified that he was 45 years old and didn’t have any physical problems prior to the collision. He was very active and was unable to do many physical activities without pain after the collision. Though he admitted he returned to his normal routine and work duties after the accident, he testified that his job ultimately suffered because he could no longer lift much weight or drive for long periods, limiting his ability to grow his business and take on new clients.
A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $50,000, and the trial court entered a final order and judgment based on the jury’s verdict. The plaintiff filed a motion for additur or new trial, which was denied.
The Plaintiff Appeals
On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for additur under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-12.5. Specifically, he asserted that the $50,000 jury award was “grossly inadequate” and “inconsistent with the preponderance of the evidence in this case” such that it must have been the result of bias, prejudice, or corruption.
But Justice Ken Hodges and a panel of the Georgia Court of Appeals found that his claim lacked merit.
O.C.G.A. § 51-12-12 (a) states that the question of damages is ordinarily one for the jury; and the court shouldn’t interfere with the jury’s verdict unless the damages awarded by the jury are “clearly so inadequate or so excessive as to be inconsistent with the preponderance of the evidence in the case.” However, the statute also provides that:
[i]f the jury’s award of damages is clearly so inadequate or so excessive as to any party as to be inconsistent with the preponderance of the evidence, the trial court may order a new trial as to damages only, as to any or all parties, or may condition the grant of such a new trial upon any party’s refusal to accept an amount determined by the trial court.
Quoting an earlier decision, Judge Hodges wrote that the trial court determines whether the damages awarded were “within the range authorized by a preponderance of the evidence,” and the Court of Appeals’ “approval of the verdict creates a presumption of correctness which is not to be disturbed absent compelling evidence.”
The threshold for an appellate court to set aside a jury verdict approved by the trial court under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-12(a) is extremely high, the judge explained, and the Court of Appeals may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on the fact-based question of whether the damages awarded were within the range authorized by a preponderance of the evidence. Instead, the Court must limits its review to whether the trial court, who saw the witnesses and heard the testimony, abused its discretion in denying the motion. In Georgia, an abuse of discretion occurs:
- where the trial court failed to exercise its discretion in reviewing the award;
- where the trial court’s exercise of its discretion was infected by a significant legal error or a clear error as to a material factual finding; or
- where the verdict was so excessive or inadequate as to be irrational and thus the apparent result of jury bias, prejudice, or corruption.
Applying these standards to the present case, Judge Hodges concludes that the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff’ motion for new trial or additur under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-12. The judge reasoned that it was clear from the trial court’s order and its incorporated reasons articulated on the record at the conclusion of the motion for new trial hearing that the court exercised its discretion in reviewing the verdict. Second, the trial court’s exercise of its discretion wasn’t infected by a clear error as to a material factual finding or a significant legal error because the record demonstrated that the court applied the correct legal principles.
The plaintiff failed to raise any issue as to these first two factors. Rather, he argued that the trial court “abused its discretion in not providing any relief under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-12 because the irrational jury verdict in the face of the . . . evidence was apparently the result of ‘jury bias, prejudice, or corruption.'” According to the plaintiff, an award of less than half his past medical expenses, let alone future damages, “strains rationality” and “indicates that factors outside the evidence influenced the jury’s decision-making process, such as defense counsel’s inappropriate closing argument.”
But in light of the evidence, the Judge Hodges and the panel didn’t find that the verdict was so inadequate as to be irrational or “as to shock the conscience.” Moreover, the plaintiff pointed to no evidence let alone compelling evidence, nor have did the Court find any upon review of the record that challenged this conclusion and requires reversal. As the trial court indicated at the conclusion of the motion for new trial hearing, both the plaintiff’ and the defendants’ positions were plausible, and the jury was authorized to weigh the evidence, assess the credibility of the witnesses, and believe the defense’s theory over the plaintiff’ theory.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff’ motion for additur on this ground. Thomas v. Accurate Steel Rule Cutting Die, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 207, 2025 LX 79796 (Ga. App. May 23, 2025).
Contact Us
Having a knowledgeable Atlanta personal injury lawyer that Georgia residents trust with extensive experience in handling personal injury cases every day makes a big difference. Whomever you hire as your personal injury lawyer must understand Georgia law and how to apply the state’s personal injury laws effectively.
Our experienced Atlanta based personal injury law firm is happy to answer your questions. We offer free consultations to all prospective clients. Contact an Atlanta personal injury attorney Georgia residents trust at Tobin Injury Law 24 hours a day, seven days a week by calling 404-JUSTICE (404-587-8423).