Circuit Court Judge Orders Reduction Of Jury Verdict In Mold Case

A Loudon County judge recently reduced a jury award in a mold exposure case in which a family claimed to have sustained personal injuries due to mold in their home.  The jury awarded 4.75 million dollars, and the trial judge reduced the award to 1.45 million dollars.  The judge found in part that the verdict was excessive, leading the judge to believe that the jury had misunderstood the law.  The judge further noted that although one of the plaintiff's had suffered significant injuries, the injuries were not permanent in nature.

The judge's decision appears to be at odds with Supreme Court precedent, which requires that a verdict "shock the conscience" to be reduced.  In Norfolk Beveridge v. Cho, a husband and wife were assaulted by a truck driver and incurred $1,300 and $8,500 in economic damages respectively.  The jury returned verdicts of $160,000 and $310,000.  In a very brief analysis, the Supreme Court simply noted that "the amount of the jury verdicts are not shocking to this court," and upheld the jury verdicts.

Perhaps most interesting, the primary argument the defendant asserted in Norfolk Beverage, was that there was no evidence of a permanent injury.  The Supreme Court found this argument unconvincing, yet this was the main reason that the Loudon County court cited when reducing the verdict.