Kenton v. Hyatt Hotels Corp. - 693 S.W.2d 83 (Mo. 1985)

Kenton v. Hyatt Hotels Corp.

693 S.W.2d 83 (Mo. 1985)

I. Issue

1) Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence concerning events at the hotel.

2) Whether the trial court erred in refusing to exclude the testimonies of two law school professors and the economist.

3) Whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant a remittitur of $2,000,000 since the jury's verdict greatly exceeded the upper limits of "fair and reasonable compensation."

II. Fact

Two skywalks collapsed onto the hotel's crowded lobby floor.  Victims and their family members sued various defendants, including Hyatt.  Some victims agreed not to present evidence bearing on how the defendants constructed and maintained the skywalks in exchange for settlement.  

III. Procedure

The trial of Kenton resulted in a  jury award of $4 million in compensatory damages.  D filed post-verdict motions seeking a new trial on the ground that the jury's award was excessive.  The trial judge concluded that the verdict was excessive and entered an order sustaining a motion for a new trial unless P filed a remittitur (remission) of $250,000.  P accepted the remittitur.  Both appealed.

The Court of Appeals declined to restore the remittitur.

IV. Reasoning

1) P was entitled to show the force and violence of this tragic occurrence as bearing upon the nature of her injuries.  Even though photographs are gruesome, they need not be excluded if they satisfy the rules as to the admission of demonstrative evidence.  The evidence's probative value far outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have had on the jury.

2) There was a sufficient factual basis for them to give their opinions.  Her slight experience with para-and quadriplegics did not affect her expertise on employment opportunities.  The economists' expert testimony can be based upon the expert testimony of the employment counselor. 

3) The ultimate test is what fairly and reasonably compensates plaintiff for the injuries sustained.  In making this determination consideration is given to the nature and extent to the injuries, diminished earning capacity, economic conditions, plaintiff's age, and a comparison of the compensation awarded and permitted in cases of comparable injuries.

V. Holding

1) There was no error in admitting the evidence.

2) There was no error in admitting the testimonies of the law school professors and economist.

3) The verdict of the jury is affirmed and the cause is remanded with directions to set aside the order of remittitur and to reinstate the verdict and enter judgment for P in the sum of $4,000,000.