Canterino v. The Mirage Casino-Hotel, 117 Nev. 19

Summary

The Supreme Court of Nevada held that the district court abused its discretion by ordering a new trial on liability based on the alleged excessiveness of the jury's damages award and counsel's arguments. However, the court affirmed a new trial on damages because the district court improperly instructed two jurors who disagreed on liability not to participate in deliberating damages. The case was remanded for a new trial limited to damages.

Holdings

1. The district court abused its discretion in ordering a new trial based on the alleged excessiveness of the damages award and Canterino's refusal to accept the remittitur. The uncontradicted evidence supported the jury's award, and the absence of an outwardly visible injury was not a proper basis for reducing damages.
2. All empaneled jurors must participate in deliberations on every issue submitted to them, including damages, even when one or more jurors disagree with the liability determination. A verdict based on deliberations by fewer than all empaneled jurors is invalid as to the affected issue.
3. Although the district court ordinarily must answer a jury question in the presence of or after notice to the parties or counsel, the failure to provide notice was not harmless because the court's answer incorrectly excluded two jurors from deliberating on damages.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by ordering a new trial based on the alleged excessiveness of the jury's damages award and Canterino's refusal to accept the conditional remittitur.
2. Whether jurors who disagreed with the liability determination were required to participate in deliberations concerning damages.
3. Whether the district court's failure to notify counsel before answering the jury's question constituted harmless error.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded