Bustamente v. City of Tucson, No. 2
| Court | Court of Appeals of Arizona |
| Writing for the Court | LACAGNINA; HATHAWAY, P.J., and LIVERMORE |
| Citation | 701 P.2d 861,145 Ariz. 365 |
| Parties | Antonio L. BUSTAMANTE, Jr., and Frances Bustamante, husband and wife, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. CITY OF TUCSON, Defendant/Appellant. 5247. |
| Decision Date | 11 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,CA-CIV |
Page 861
v.
CITY OF TUCSON, Defendant/Appellant.
Division 2, Department B.
[145 Ariz. 366]
Page 862
Gordon T. Alley, Tucson, for plaintiffs/appellees.Kimble, Gothreau, Nelson & Cannon, P.C. by Daryl A. Audilett and Michael J. Gothreau, Tucson, for defendant/appellant.
LACAGNINA, Judge.
This is a case of assault and battery by police officers employed by the City of Tucson while arresting Antonio Bustamante, Jr. Bustamante suffered bruises as a result of the use of a night stick and rough handling by the police officers. The jury returned a verdict in the amount of $650.72, the exact amount of Bustamante's special damages. The trial court granted a motion for new trial on the issue of damages only unless the city agreed to an additur of $12,500. The city refused to agree to the additur and claims on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the new trial unless the city agreed to the additur. We affirm.
Appellate courts have a difficult task reviewing orders for additur and remittitur. The resolution of each case depends upon its own peculiar facts. There are recognized tests to apply, but they are only guidelines to follow leading toward the ultimate test of justice. The Supreme Court of Arizona has explained our obligation upon review in the case of Creamer v. Troiano, 108 Ariz. 573, 503 P.2d 794 (1972):
"From what we have written, it is obvious that the test for reviewing the granting or refusing of a trial judge's adjustment of a verdict is complex and can only be solved by an ad hoc approach. Almost always when there is a conflict in the evidence, the trial judge should not interfere with what is peculiarly the jury's function, and if he does not, we will nearly always uphold him. If there is no conflict in the evidence on items that obviously were omitted from the verdict, the trial judge must adjust, and we will uphold him if he does. Behind all of these tests still stands the original doctrine--that if the verdict is supported by adequate evidence, it will not be disturbed, and the greatest possible discretion is in the hands of the trial judge. In this court, the ultimate test will always be justice, and any case before us which shows an unjust result because of the granting or denial of either additur or remittitur, will be reversed. Each case will be considered upon its own facts." 108 Ariz. at 576, 503 P.2d at 797.
As...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. CV-00-1607-PHX-JAT.
...necessary" medical expenses. (Mot. at 9-10) (citing Anderson v. Muniz, 21 Ariz.App. 25, 515 P.2d 52 (1973); Bustamante v. City of Tucson, 145 Ariz. 365, 701 P.2d 861 (1985)).6 Plaintiffs argue that Defendant's initial offer of $4,683.48 consisted of only Ms. Young's $4407.45 in medical bill......
-
Covino v. Forrest, No. 1 CA-CV 13-0433
...of the trial court, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal except for a case of clear abuse." Bustamante v. City of Tucson, 145 Ariz. 365, 366, 701 P.2d 861, 862 (App. 1985).¶47 As with her previous motions, Glenna contends additur is appropriate because the jury established the D......
-
Warne Investments, Ltd. v. Higgins, No. 1 CA-CV 06-0410.
...damages."). If the defendant rejects the additur, the new trial motion is granted. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 59(i)(1); Bustamante v. Tucson, 145 Ariz. 365, 366-67, 701 P.2d 861, 862-63 (App.1985) (finding trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering new trial only on issue of damages when de......
-
Sonanes v. Core Constr. Serv. of Arizona, Inc., 1 CA-CV 10-0796
...of a motion for new trial, and we will not overturn that decision absent a clear abuse of discretion."); Bustamante v. City of Tucson, 145 Ariz. 365, 366, 701 P.2d 861, 862 (App. 1985) ("[T]he question of additur is left to the greatest possible discretion of the trial court, and its decisi......
-
Young v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. CV-00-1607-PHX-JAT.
...necessary" medical expenses. (Mot. at 9-10) (citing Anderson v. Muniz, 21 Ariz.App. 25, 515 P.2d 52 (1973); Bustamante v. City of Tucson, 145 Ariz. 365, 701 P.2d 861 (1985)).6 Plaintiffs argue that Defendant's initial offer of $4,683.48 consisted of only Ms. Young's $4407.45 in medical bill......
-
Covino v. Forrest, No. 1 CA-CV 13-0433
...of the trial court, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal except for a case of clear abuse." Bustamante v. City of Tucson, 145 Ariz. 365, 366, 701 P.2d 861, 862 (App. 1985).¶47 As with her previous motions, Glenna contends additur is appropriate because the jury established the D......
-
Warne Investments, Ltd. v. Higgins, No. 1 CA-CV 06-0410.
...damages."). If the defendant rejects the additur, the new trial motion is granted. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 59(i)(1); Bustamante v. Tucson, 145 Ariz. 365, 366-67, 701 P.2d 861, 862-63 (App.1985) (finding trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering new trial only on issue of damages when de......
-
Sonanes v. Core Constr. Serv. of Arizona, Inc., 1 CA-CV 10-0796
...of a motion for new trial, and we will not overturn that decision absent a clear abuse of discretion."); Bustamante v. City of Tucson, 145 Ariz. 365, 366, 701 P.2d 861, 862 (App. 1985) ("[T]he question of additur is left to the greatest possible discretion of the trial court, and its decisi......