# data[].attributes.body
Brandon Lockhart and Lindsay Gibson encountered Harrison Banks at a Library Bar and Grill.

Gibson slapped Banks several times. Lockhart and Gibson left and later walked down an alley.

A third party encountered them in the alley and knocked Gibson down to the ground.

Lockhart went to help Gibson up, but then was struck in the face.

When Lockhart looked up, he saw Banks running away. Banks claims he was not there during

the second altercation.

Lockhart needed surgery to repair the damage to his face and shattered sinus bone.

# data[].attributes.body
Lockhart sued Banks for the alleged battery.

The jury was in favor of Lockhart’s claim and awarded $300,000 in compensatory damages and  $50,000 in punitive damages.

Banks filed alternative post-trial motions for a judgement notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial, or a remittitur.

The court denied each request.

Banks appealed to the Court of Appeals of Mississippi

# data[].attributes.body
Issue 1:
The jury’s verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Issue 2:
The trail court erred when it allowed the jury to consider punitive damages.

Issue 3:
The trial court erred when it did not grant a remittitur on compensatory and punitive damages.

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court of Mississippi held that “once the jury has returned a verdict in a civil case, an appellate court is not at liberty to direct that judgement be entered contrary to that verdict short of conclusion on the reviewing court’s part that, given the evidence as a whole, take in the

light most favorable to the verdict, no reasonable, hypothetical juror could have found as the jury found.”

# data[].attributes.body
To determine whether the verdict in favor of Lockhart was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, the court examined the elements of the intentional tort of battery and whether the evidence supports the verdict. Since the allocation took place the first time, it is justifiable for the jury to assume Banks was present in the second allocation. Since the medical hospital records

and bills were proof of the battery upon Lockhart, that is not a disputed fact.

To review the damages awarded as unsupported by the records, the awarded $350,000 compared to the current $11,654.64 bills was not found as unreasonable. The court cannot speculate about the reason for the differences between the damages claimed by Lockhart and the jury’s award.

Lockhart is claiming past, present, and future physical pain and suffering, and resulting mental anguish. For punitive damages to have been appropriate, Mississippi law requires a showing that the defendant acted with… willful, wanton, or reckless disregard for the safety of others. Give the facts of the case, such a presumption can be made with respect to Bank’s intent.

The court then reviewed the trial court’s denial of Bank’s motion for remittitur for abuse of

discretion. A reasonable, hypothetical juror could have found as the jury here found; thus, this court finds the overwhelming weight of the evidence is not against the verdict.

# data[].attributes.body
Judgment in favor of Lockhart affirmed.