Lee v. Ball, 121 Nev. 391

Summary

The Supreme Court of Nevada held that additur may be granted only as an alternative to a new trial on damages, and that the district court erred by imposing additur without offering that option. The court also held that the district court incorrectly calculated prejudgment interest under NRS 17.130(2), reversed the judgment, and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. A district court may not grant additur as a stand-alone remedy. When additur is warranted, it must be presented to the defendant as an alternative to a new trial on damages.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that additur was warranted because the jury's award was substantially less than the conceded special damages and therefore provided some indication that the damages were clearly inadequate.
3. Under NRS 17.130(2), prejudgment interest must be calculated using the single statutory rate in effect on the date of judgment, rather than by applying the periodic biannual rates in effect during the accrual period.
4. Prejudgment interest accrues from the date of service of the summons and complaint until the judgment is satisfied, subject to statutory exceptions.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by granting an additur without offering the defendant the alternative of a new trial limited to damages.
2. Whether Nevada law permits additur to stand as an independent remedy rather than as an alternative to a new trial on damages.
3. Whether the district court correctly calculated the rate and accrual period for prejudgment interest under NRS 17.130(2).
4. Whether the reversal of the district court's judgment affected Lee's entitlement to attorney fees and costs.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded