Utah Supreme Court
What is the proper procedure for imposing an additur in Utah courts? Dalton v. Herold Explained
Summary
After a jury awarded Dalton $8,000 in damages for injuries from an automobile-motorcycle accident, the trial court granted an additur of $19,910.24 and ordered that defendant could accept the ruling or request a new trial. When defendant failed to act, judgment was entered according to the additur terms.
Analysis
The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Dalton v. Herold provides essential guidance on the proper procedure for imposing additurs in civil cases. This case arose from an automobile-motorcycle accident where plaintiff Marvin Dalton suffered facial and other injuries. After a jury found defendant Brian Herold 80% negligent and awarded Dalton only $8,000 in total damages ($3,000 special damages and $5,000 general damages), the trial court determined the award was inadequate.
Background and Facts
Following the jury’s verdict, Dalton moved for a new trial or an additur. The trial court denied the new trial motion but granted an additur of $19,910.24, bringing the total judgment to $26,246.99. Critically, the trial court ordered that “defendant may accept this ruling, or request a new trial.” When Herold failed to act within the prescribed time, the court entered judgment according to the additur terms. Herold appealed, and the case eventually reached the Utah Supreme Court on certiorari.
Key Legal Issues and Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court identified a fundamental procedural error that the court of appeals had overlooked. The trial court improperly made the additur contingent upon defendant’s failure to act, rather than requiring affirmative acceptance. The Court emphasized that “an additur is not a default position but a specific alternative to the grant of a new trial and must be explicitly accepted by defendant.”
The Court explained that additurs serve to “avoid the delay and expense of an appeal or a new trial” and function essentially as settlement agreements or consent decrees. Just as a properly accepted remittitur cannot be appealed, an accepted additur represents a binding agreement between the parties.
Practice Implications
This decision establishes clear procedural requirements for Utah practitioners. Trial courts must grant a new trial unless the defendant affirmatively accepts the proposed additur within a designated time period. The proper procedure protects both parties’ rights while maintaining the additur’s efficiency in resolving inadequate damage awards without requiring new trials.
Case Details
Case Name
Dalton v. Herold
Citation
1997 UT
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 950414
Date Decided
March 7, 1997
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
An additur must be explicitly accepted by the defendant as an alternative to a new trial and cannot be made contingent upon the defendant’s failure to act.
Standard of Review
Not specified – procedural error analysis
Practice Tip
When seeking an additur, ensure the trial court follows proper procedure by requiring explicit acceptance within a specified time period as an alternative to granting a new trial, rather than making the additur contingent upon the defendant’s failure to act.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.