What Is Remittitur in Georgia? How It Works in Civil Cases
After a civil trial, a jury’s damages award may be challenged as excessive. In Georgia, remittitur is a procedure that can reduce an award when the trial judge finds it is not supported by the evidence or is otherwise legally excessive. The judge may give the plaintiff a choice: accept a lower amount or face a new trial on damages. The process is governed by Georgia law and court decisions, and its outcome can depend on the case record and the type of damages awarded.
What Remittitur Means
Remittitur is a court-ordered reduction of a jury’s damages award. It can arise when the defendant argues that the amount is excessive, or when the judge independently identifies a problem with the award. The term may refer to the reduction itself or to the procedure by which a judge offers the plaintiff a choice between accepting the reduced amount and having damages retried.
Remittitur does not necessarily mean the jury made an error or acted improperly. A court may conclude that the verdict is too large even if the jury reached it honestly. The key question is whether the amount has adequate support in the evidence and complies with the law—not whether the judge would have awarded the same amount.
Georgia’s main statute on reviewing damages in tort cases is O.C.G.A. § 51-12-12. It addresses verdicts that are excessive or inadequate and provides a framework for a new trial or adjustment. The statute applies to tort actions; other types of civil claims may involve different rules or legal principles.
How Georgia Law Treats an Excessive Verdict
Under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-12, a damages verdict in a tort case may be challenged if it is excessive or inadequate in light of the evidence. The court considers whether the award is strongly against the weight of the evidence or otherwise meets the statutory standard. A party’s disagreement with the amount, by itself, is not enough to require a reduction.
When a judge finds that a tort damages award is excessive, the statute allows the court to order a new trial limited to damages or, subject to the applicable procedure, allow the plaintiff to accept a reduced award instead. A damages-only retrial can preserve the jury’s findings on liability while asking a new jury to decide the amount. Whether that approach is appropriate depends on the circumstances and whether liability can fairly be separated from damages.
Remittitur is distinct from a unilateral editing of the verdict. The court must follow the governing legal procedure, and the parties may have rights relating to whether a reduced award is accepted. If the plaintiff does not accept a reduction where consent is required, the case may proceed to a new trial rather than simply entering judgment at the lower figure.
What a Judge Considers
A judge reviews the trial record, including testimony, exhibits, expert opinions, and the instructions given to the jury. The court generally does not replace the jury’s role simply because it might have valued the case differently. Instead, it evaluates whether the award has a reasonable evidentiary basis and whether the legal standards for disturbing a verdict are met.
The relevant evidence varies by claim. In a personal injury case, it may include medical bills, lost wages, future treatment estimates, physical limitations, and testimony about pain or loss of enjoyment of life. In a property-damage case, repair costs, replacement value, and expert valuations may matter. The evidence must connect to the damages the law permits the plaintiff to recover.
A large award is not automatically excessive. The amount should be assessed in context, including the severity and duration of the injury, the credibility of witnesses, and the strength of the evidence. Conversely, an award may be challenged when it lacks support, rests on an improper factor, or appears inconsistent with the evidence and applicable law.
How the Remittitur Process Typically Works
- A party identifies a basis to challenge the verdict. After judgment, the defendant may argue that the damages award is excessive. A plaintiff may challenge an award as inadequate, although that is not remittitur in the usual sense.
- The issue is raised through the proper motion. The party may seek a new trial or other appropriate relief under the applicable Georgia statutes and court rules. The motion should identify the evidence and legal grounds supporting the request.
- The judge reviews the record. The court evaluates the arguments against the trial evidence and the governing standard. It may hold a hearing, depending on the motion and the circumstances.
- The court decides whether the verdict can stand. If the legal threshold is not met, the award remains in place. If the court finds a qualifying problem, it may order a new trial on damages or use an authorized remittitur procedure.
- The plaintiff responds to the proposed reduction, when applicable. The plaintiff may accept the reduced amount or decline it and pursue a new trial as permitted by the court’s order and governing law.
The exact sequence can differ based on the case, the court, and the relief requested. The written order matters: it should make clear what happens if the plaintiff accepts or rejects the proposed reduction and whether the retrial concerns damages alone or other issues as well.
Remittitur Compared With a New Trial
A new trial reopens some or all of the issues for another jury. A damages-only retrial focuses on the amount of compensation, while a full retrial may revisit liability as well. Remittitur can avoid repeating the damages phase if the plaintiff accepts the reduced amount and the court can resolve the challenge without another trial.
That distinction can be important. A damages-only retrial may be appropriate when the liability findings are sound and separable from the damages question. If the issues are closely connected—for example, if evidence relevant to liability also shaped the damages verdict—the court may need to consider whether a limited retrial would be fair and workable.
Remittitur is also not the same as settlement. A settlement is an agreement between parties, usually reached through negotiation. A remittitur is a judicial remedy linked to review of a verdict. The parties may settle while a post-trial motion is pending, but that is a separate process.
Remittitur and Additur
Additur is commonly used to describe an increase in a damages award that a judge considers inadequate. It is the conceptual opposite of remittitur, but the two procedures should not be assumed to operate identically. Georgia law addresses excessive and inadequate tort awards, and the remedy depends on the statute, constitutional principles, and the particular case.
When a verdict is alleged to be too low, the plaintiff may seek a new trial or other relief allowed by law. A court’s options and the parties’ rights can differ from those involved in a proposed reduction. Anyone evaluating an inadequate award should review the applicable Georgia statute and current case law rather than assume that a judge can simply increase a jury’s figure.
Deadlines and Preservation of the Issue
Timing is critical. Under O.C.G.A. § 5-5-40, a motion for a new trial generally must be filed within 30 days after entry of the judgment, subject to the statute and any applicable exceptions. The deadline and requirements should be checked against the specific procedural posture and current law.
A notice of appeal in a Georgia civil case generally must be filed within 30 days after entry of the appealable judgment or order under O.C.G.A. § 5-6-38. A timely post-trial motion can affect when the appeal period begins or resumes. Because deadline calculations can depend on the motion and the order, parties should not assume that informal discussions, a request for reconsideration, or settlement negotiations stop the clock.
Preserving the issue also means making an adequate record. The motion should identify why the award is excessive, point to relevant evidence, and explain the requested remedy. A party seeking appellate review generally needs to have raised the issue properly in the trial court and followed applicable briefing and record requirements.
Appellate Review of Remittitur
When a remittitur ruling is appealed, the reviewing court examines whether the trial court applied the proper legal standard and acted within its discretion. Appellate review is not ordinarily a fresh calculation of damages. The appellate court considers the record and the reasons given for the ruling, along with the governing statute and precedent.
The outcome may depend on details such as the evidence supporting each category of damages, the wording of the jury instructions, objections made during trial, and the trial judge’s explanation. A ruling that lacks an adequate legal basis may be challenged, but the fact that another amount could also have been reasonable does not necessarily establish reversible error.
Federal Court Cases in Georgia
A civil case filed in a federal court in Georgia may involve a different procedural framework from a case in Georgia state court. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 governs motions for a new trial and, in some situations, remittitur. Federal courts must also account for the Seventh Amendment’s protection of the jury’s role in determining facts.
In federal practice, a court may condition denial of a new-trial motion on the plaintiff’s acceptance of a reduced award. If the plaintiff rejects the reduction, the usual alternative is a new trial rather than a judge imposing a different jury award without consent. The applicable law can also depend on whether the federal court is applying Georgia substantive law in a diversity case.
Common Misunderstandings About Georgia Remittitur
- “Any high verdict can be reduced.” A court needs a legal basis supported by the record; a large award alone does not establish excessiveness.
- “The judge can always replace the jury’s number.” Remittitur is governed by statutory and procedural limits. It is not a general power to choose a preferred award.
- “Remittitur ends the case automatically.” The plaintiff’s response and the court’s order may determine whether judgment is entered at a reduced amount or a new trial follows.
- “The same rules apply in state and federal court.” The governing procedure may differ depending on the court and the type of claim.
- “A post-trial motion removes all deadline concerns.” Filing and appeal deadlines are strict and must be checked for the specific case.
Practical Steps After a Damages Verdict
Parties considering a remittitur motion should promptly obtain the judgment, trial transcript, exhibits, and jury instructions. They should identify the exact damages categories at issue and compare the verdict with the evidence supporting each one. A focused argument is generally more useful than a broad assertion that the amount is unfair.
It is also important to distinguish a challenge to the amount from a challenge to liability, evidentiary rulings, or jury instructions. Different issues can require different motions, records, and deadlines. A lawyer familiar with Georgia post-trial practice can evaluate whether remittitur, a new trial, or an appeal is available and what risks each option carries.
Key Takeaway
In Georgia, remittitur is a limited post-verdict remedy for an allegedly excessive damages award. The court examines the evidence and applicable law, and the result may be a reduced award accepted by the plaintiff or a new trial on damages. The governing procedure depends on the type of case and whether it is in state or federal court. Statutes and court rules can change, so this overview is general information—not legal advice for a particular case.