Unpublished Disposition, 841 F.2d 1128 (9th Cir. 1988)
Annotate this CaseRosa DeLEON and Gabriel DeLeon, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 86-2908.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Jan. 13, 1988.Decided Feb. 25, 1988.
Before CHAMBERS, ALDISERT** and SCHROEDER, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM*
The DeLeons sued Pan Am for the wrongful death of their daughter in an air crash in 1982. They appeal the denial of their motion for a new trial asserting that (1) the jury's damage verdicts of $70,000 to each plaintiff were inconsistent and inadequate, and that (2) defense counsel made improper remarks in his opening statement and closing argument. Because we find no impropriety by either the jury or counsel, we affirm the district court.
We review the denial of a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion. Swimmer v. IRS, 811 F.2d 1343, 1345 (9th Cir. 1987). A jury's damages award will not be disturbed unless it is clearly unsupported by the evidence or is grossly excessive or shocking to the conscience. Hasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc., 830 F.2d 1513, 1522 (9th Cir. 1987).
The DeLeons contend the damage verdicts are inconsistent because there is a significant difference in the life expectancy of each plaintiff. The evidence was to the contrary. Mrs. DeLeon's life expectancy was 29.4. years. Mr. DeLeon's life expectancy was 25.4 years. Moreover, at oral argument, the DeLeon's counsel acknowledged that if the damage award had been $60,000 to Mr. DeLeon and $80,000 to Mrs. DeLeon, he would not be in court on the disparity issue. The DeLeons fail to demonstrate the jury did not treat them separately.
We affirm the damage awards. They are supported by the evidence and are neither grossly inadequate nor shocking to the conscience.
We find defense counsel's references to the loss of other lives in the air crash and to the Challenger shuttle disaster were isolated and casual. Such remarks are not grounds for reversal if they are not representative of the quality of the argument as a whole. See Moore v. Telfon Comm. Corp., 589 F.2d 959, 966 (9th Cir. 1978). We do not find these remarks to be either inflammatory or prejudicial. Furthermore, the district court admonished the jury not to treat the statements of counsel as evidence.
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
