AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants, alleging damages resulting from injuries. The jury awarded damages to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff argued that the award was insufficient and did not reflect the evidence presented. The Defendants, in turn, sought recovery of costs based on an earlier settlement offer that was not accepted by the Plaintiff (paras 1-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: The jury awarded damages to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff's motion for additur or a new trial was denied. The trial court awarded costs to the Defendants only from the date of their second settlement offer (headnotes, paras 1, 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the jury failed to follow instructions, resulting in an inadequate damage award. Claimed that the trial court erred in denying the motion for additur or a new trial, as there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's award (paras 2-3).
• Defendants: Contended that the trial court erred in awarding costs only from the date of the second settlement offer, arguing that costs should have been awarded from the date of the first offer, which was more favorable than the judgment ultimately obtained by the Plaintiff (paras 4-6).

Legal Issues

• Did the jury fail to follow instructions, resulting in an inadequate damage award?
• Did the trial court err in denying the Plaintiff's motion for additur or a new trial?
• Should the Defendants have been awarded costs from the date of their first settlement offer?

Disposition

• The Plaintiff's appeal was dismissed, and the jury's damage award was upheld (para 3).
• The Defendants' cross-appeal was allowed, and the trial court's judgment on costs was reversed, with instructions to award costs from the date of the first settlement offer (paras 6-7).

Reasons

Per Apodaca J.:

• On the Plaintiff's appeal, the Court found no evidence that the jury failed to follow instructions. The jury was entitled to weigh conflicting evidence, including expert testimony, and determine the extent of damages. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for additur or a new trial (paras 2-3).
• On the Defendants' cross-appeal, the Court held that Rule 1-068 allows recovery of costs from the date of the first settlement offer if the judgment obtained is less favorable than the offer. The second offer did not supersede the first, and the Defendants were entitled to costs from the date of the first offer (paras 4-6).