DOE v. GREEN, 06C-04-005 ESB (Del.Super. 7-21-2008)

C.A. No. 06C-04-005 ESB.Superior Court of Delaware, Sussex County.Submitted: April 14, 2008.
Decided: July 21, 2008.

Bruce L. Hudson, Esquire, Law Office of Bruce L Hudson, Wilmington, DE.

Kenneth A. Green, SBI # Delaware Correctional Center, Smyrna, DE.

E. SCOTT BRADLEY, Judge.

Dear Messrs. Hudson and Green:

This is my decision on plaintiff Jane Doe’s[1] motion for additur or a new trial in this personal injury case involving allegations of sexual abuse by an adult male against a female child. Doe lived next door to defendant Kenneth A. Green and babysat for his children. Green had sexual intercourse with Doe in his house a number of times over an eight-month period of time in 2005. Doe and Green were, at the time, 14 and 37, respectively. An expert witness for Doe testified at trial that she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and will require counseling for an extended period of time. The jury found that Green’s acts were reckless, intentional and outrageous, but only awarded Doe $12,500 in compensatory damages and $200 in punitive damages.

In deciding a motion for additur or a new trial, the court must give enormous deference to the jury’s verdict.[2] In a motion for a new trial, the court starts with the fundamental principle that the jury’s verdict is presumed to be correct.[3] In a jury trial, the function of the fact finder does not belong to the court, but rather t o th e jury.[4] The jury’s verdict should not be disturbed unless it is clearly shown to be the result of passion, prejudice, partiality or corruption, or that it was manifestly in disregard of the evidence or applicable rules of law.[5] Furthermore, the court will not upset the verdict of a jury unless “the evidence preponderates so heavily against the jury verdict that a reasonable jury could not have reached the result.”[6] The decision whether to grant additur or a new trial lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.[7] A court may set aside a jury award if it is so grossly out of proportion to the injury suffered as to shock the court’s conscience and sense of

Page 2

justice.[8]

The jury’s verdict is so grossly out of proportion to the psychological injuries suffered by Doe that it does shock my conscience and sense of justice. Green is a child molester. He repeatedly raped Doe, leaving her suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and needing counseling for an extended period of time. Notwithstanding this, the jury only awarded her a paltry sum of money. This verdict is truly shocking to me. Therefore, I have granted Doe’s motion for a new trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 1