MATHESON, Circuit Judge.
In 2012, O.K. Farms, Inc. hired J.B. Hunt Transportation, Inc. ("Hunt") to deliver chickens to Roger Gentry, a poultry grower with a farm near Wister, Oklahoma. Hunt, in turn, hired truck driver Troy Ford to deliver the chickens. On August 12, 2012, friends and relatives of Mr. Gentry were present to help him receive the delivery, among them, Jimmy Hill ("Jimmy"). As Mr. Ford drove into the chicken house on a Moffett, a vehicle similar to a forklift, he hit Jimmy's leg and injured his ankle. Jimmy's ankle became infected, and he died on December 2, 2012.
Michael Hill, Jimmy's son and the special administrator of his estate,
A few days before trial, Hunt's counsel discovered Mr. Ford was unwilling to appear at trial, despite having been subpoenaed. On the second day of trial, Hunt moved the court to compel Mr. Ford's appearance at trial or, alternatively, to admit his video deposition testimony. The district court denied Hunt's motion. The
Hunt moved for a new trial or, alternatively, remittitur under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) and (e), arguing (1) the court's decision not to compel Mr. Ford's appearance and its exclusion of his deposition testimony prejudiced Hunt, and (2) the jury award was excessive and unsupported by the evidence. The district court denied Hunt's motion.
Hunt appeals from the final judgment and the denial of its Rule 59 motion. Exercising our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
O.K. Farms had hired Aaron Mize to help Mr. Ford transport the chickens. He and Mr. Gentry testified to the events preceding the accident. According to both, Mr. Ford had a blind spot to his front right as he drove the Moffett into Mr. Gentry's chicken house. Mr. Mize and Mr. Gentry stood near the Moffett and helped direct Mr. Ford. Mr. Gentry instructed Mr. Ford to pull forward. As Mr. Ford drove forward, Jimmy crossed paths with the Moffett. Mr. Mize yelled for Mr. Ford to stop, but it was too late. Mr. Ford had already hit Jimmy.
Jimmy's ankle was fractured on the day of the accident. He underwent an operation on September 10. His ankle became infected, and he was re-admitted to the hospital on October 10. On October 24, a second surgery removed the infected hardware in his ankle. He was then transferred to long-term acute care ("LTAC") on October 30, where he was treated with intravenous antibiotic therapy. While in the LTAC unit, he contracted fungal sepsis. He died on December 2. Additional details regarding the accident and Jimmy's decline in health are discussed as relevant below.
In September 2014, Mr. Hill issued a subpoena ordering Mr. Ford to appear at trial, which was set to begin on Tuesday, October 28. Hunt's counsel accepted service of all subpoenas, including this one, on behalf of Hunt's employees, unaware Hunt had terminated Mr. Ford in May 2014. Before trial, Hunt submitted a witness list that included Mr. Ford's name, but Hunt did not include Mr. Ford's video deposition testimony in its deposition designations due two weeks before trial under one of the court's pre-trial scheduling orders.
Six days before trial, on Wednesday, October 22, Hunt's attorneys learned Mr. Ford had been terminated. They immediately called him to confirm his willingness to appear as a witness, but Mr. Ford told counsel he refused to appear. Hunt's counsel therefore issued a subpoena on Friday, October 24. That same day, Hunt's paralegal met with Mr. Ford in person and attempted to persuade him to come to trial. Hunt's counsel continued calling Mr. Ford throughout the weekend, but he insisted he would not come.
On Monday, October 27, the day before trial, Hunt served both Mr. Hill's September subpoena and its own October subpoena on Mr. Ford. According to the server's affidavit, Mr. Ford told the server, "I already told them everything I am going to tell them. I'm not going. I'm going to take this [witness fee] check and cash it but I
On the first day of trial, both Mr. Hill's and Hunt's counsel informed the court for the first time that Mr. Ford refused to appear at trial. On the second day, Hunt moved for a bench warrant for the arrest and delivery of Mr. Ford to the court.
The district court denied both requests. First, it declined to order the Marshals to deliver Mr. Ford to the court, reasoning Mr. Ford lived over 120 miles away from the courthouse; there was a "slim" chance he would be at home because he was an over-the-road truck driver, App. at 889; and attempting to compel his appearance would disrupt trial. Second, the court excluded Mr. Ford's deposition testimony because Hunt had failed to include it in its deposition designations.
The jury found in favor of Mr. Hill, attributing 98% of the negligence that caused the accident to Hunt and 2% to Mr. Gentry, a non-party. It awarded Hill $3.4 million, to be reduced by Mr. Gentry's 2% fault, yielding $3.332 million.
Hunt moved for a new trial or, alternatively, remittitur under Rule 59(a) and (e). First, Hunt argued the court's refusal to compel Mr. Ford's appearance and its exclusion of his deposition testimony were prejudicial errors. Second, Hunt contended the jury award was excessive and unsupported by the evidence, warranting a new trial or remittitur of at least $2,900,000, for a total judgment of less than $500,000.
The district court denied Hunt's Rule 59 motion. First, it ruled the decision not to compel Mr. Ford's appearance was warranted for the reasons stated during trial. Second, it reaffirmed the exclusion of Mr. Ford's deposition testimony was proper. It added any error would have been harmless because the admissible evidence from Mr. Ford's deposition was cumulative of other trial testimony. Finally, the court affirmed the jury award, rejecting Hunt's argument that the damages were excessive or unsupported by the evidence.
We affirm. First, because the district court acted within its discretion when it
We review denials of Rule 59(a) and Rule 59(e) motions for abuse of discretion. Elm Ridge Expl. Co. v. Engle, 721 F.3d 1199, 1216 (10th Cir.2013). "A district court abuses its discretion if it made a clear error of judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances." ClearOne Commc'ns, Inc. v. Biamp Sys., 653 F.3d 1163, 1178 (10th Cir.2011) (quotations omitted). As noted below, the same standard of review—abuse of discretion—applies to each error Hunt alleges occurred during trial.
We review a court's decision on whether to issue a bench warrant for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Simpson, 992 F.2d 1224, 1230 (D.C.Cir. 1993) ("[A] decision to issue a bench warrant to compel the appearance of a witness lies within the trial judge's discretion. . . ."); United States v. Cherry, 940 F.2d 653, 1991 WL 150990, at *4 (4th Cir.1991) (unpublished) ("Considering the cumulative testimony and the fact that the witness was not subpoenaed until well into the trial, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to issue a bench warrant and grant the concomitant continuance."). A district court generally has the "inherent authority to manage the course of trials." Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n. 4, 105 S.Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984).
Mr. Ford disobeyed two subpoenas. His actions as the driver of the Moffett determined whether Hunt was liable. Nonetheless, we cannot say the district court abused its discretion in declining to issue a bench warrant for him. The court had "inherent authority to manage" the trial. See id. Its decision to deny a bench warrant was a reasonable exercise of this authority because: (1) Hunt first informed the court of Mr. Ford's refusal to appear on the first day of trial; (2) the distance between Mr. Ford's home and the courthouse was considerable; (3) Mr. Ford might not have been home because he was a truck driver; (4) problems in finding him might have necessitated a mid-trial continuance; (5) the judge tried to call Mr. Ford and could not reach him; and (6) his deposition testimony was available.
Hunt contends the district court underestimated the likelihood Mr. Ford would be home in that (1) he was unemployed; (2) the subpoena server found him at home one day before trial; (3) Hunt's paralegal met with Mr. Ford the Friday before trial; and (4) Hunt's counsel spoke with Mr. Ford by phone throughout the weekend before trial.
It took Hunt three days to fully articulate this argument. On the first day, Hunt's counsel represented he had learned of Hunt's termination only a few days earlier. He explained Mr. Ford told the server he refused to appear at trial. And he described Mr. Ford as an "independent truck driver" without further specifying his current employment status. App. at 719.
On the morning of the second day of trial, Hunt moved for a bench warrant or admission of Mr. Ford's deposition testimony. Its written motion stated Hunt's counsel had called Mr. Ford. It did not state whether counsel called his home phone or cell phone. Hunt's counsel orally represented to the court that he had "sent [counsel's] paralegal down last Friday to meet with him." Id. at 882-83. But he did not specify where she met with Mr. Ford. In short, neither its written motion nor its oral argument fully responded to the court's concern that Mr. Ford might not be home.
The court restated its concern two more times that day. First, it said, "I am not going to send a Deputy United States Marshal down to Southeastern Oklahoma,. . . especially him being an over-the-road trucker. The chances of him being found, I think, are slim. I think it would be a complete waste of time and terribly interrupts the flow of this trial." Id. at 889. It then suggested this ruling was tentative, stating the court would itself "give him a phone call . . . [to see if it could] cajole him" into appearing. Id. at 890. Later that day, the court called Mr. Ford. When Mr. Ford did not answer the phone, the court ruled it would not send the Marshals on "some wild goose chase down to find him." Id. at 1009. Hunt did not respond to the court's concern regarding the likelihood of Mr. Ford's being home.
The court reviewed and confirmed its ruling on the third day of trial. Hunt then stated for the first time that Mr. Ford was at home when counsel spoke with him by phone and that he was still unemployed.
In sum, Hunt first informed the court Mr. Ford would not appear on the first day of trial. The court repeatedly expressed concern that dispatching the Marshals might be fruitless because Mr. Ford might not be home. Hunt took three days to spell out its full argument that Mr. Ford would likely be home. Not until the third day of trial did it present a developed argument that Mr. Ford would likely be home.
Given the timing and presentation of these arguments and the six reasons stated above, we cannot say the district court abused its discretion in denying a bench warrant or in denying a new trial on this ground.
Hunt contends the district court erroneously excluded Mr. Ford's deposition testimony. Mr. Hill argues (1) Hunt failed to preserve this objection because it failed to make a timely or adequate offer of proof; (2) the district court committed no error; and (3) any error was harmless. We affirm because any error would not have affected Hunt's substantial rights.
We review a district court's exclusion of evidence for abuse of discretion, but we do so only if the appellant has preserved the issue through an adequate and timely offer of proof. Perkins v. Silver Mountain Sports Club & Spa, LLC, 557 F.3d 1141, 1146 (10th Cir.2009); see Fed.R.Evid. 103(a) ("A party may claim error in a ruling to . . . exclude evidence
If the district court abused its discretion in excluding the evidence, we then determine whether the exclusion was harmless, and we reverse only "if the error affects a substantial right of the party." Fed.R.Evid. 103; see also McInnis v. Fairfield Cmtys, Inc., 458 F.3d 1129, 1142 (10th Cir.2006) ("[W]e will not set aside a jury verdict unless the [evidentiary] error prejudicially affects a substantial right of a party." (quotations omitted)). "An error affecting a substantial right of a party is an error which had a substantial influence or which leaves one in grave doubt as to whether it had such an effect on the out-come." McInnis, 458 F.3d at 1142 (quotations omitted). When determining whether an error was harmless, "we review the record as a whole." Id. (quotations omitted).
Following the jury verdict, Hunt filed its Rule 59 motion, contending the court should have admitted Mr. Ford's deposition under Federal Rule of Evidence 804, asserting Mr. Ford was "absent from trial" and Hunt's counsel was unable "by process or other reasonable means, to procure . . . [his] attendance." Fed.R.Evid. 804(a)(5)(A). It also argued the court should have admitted Mr. Ford's deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(4)(E), which states, "A party may use for any purpose the deposition of a witness. . . if the court finds . . . that exceptional circumstances make it desirable—in the interest of justice and with due regard to the importance of live testimony in open court—to permit the deposition to be used." Finally, it argued the court's failure to admit Mr. Ford's deposition was prejudicial.
The district court denied Hunt's motion. It ruled "exceptional circumstances" under Rule 32 did not exist and that the court had properly excluded the deposition based on Hunt's failure to include it in deposition designations due two weeks before trial.
Although the record indicates Hunt may not have made an adequate or timely offer of proof to preserve its objection to the exclusion of Mr. Ford's deposition, we resolve this issue on the ground that exclusion did not affect Hunt's substantial rights. The admissible evidence from Mr. Ford's deposition was cumulative of the testimony presented by Mr. Gentry and Mr. Mize—the only eye witnesses to the accident who testified at trial.
Mr. Gentry testified that, on the day of the accident, Mr. Ford arrived at his farm with a delivery of chickens from O.K. Farms. Five of Mr. Gentry's friends and relatives were present to assist with the delivery, including Jimmy, Mr. Gentry's wife's uncle. All of them had experience unloading chickens. He further testified as follows:
Id. at 1305. Mr. Gentry testified that he, Mr. Ford, and Mr. Mize were standing in positions reflected in the exhibit.
His testimony continued:
Id. at 862-66.
On cross-examination, O.K. Farms' counsel inquired further about Mr. Ford's initial stop:
Id. at 920.
Mr. Mize testified he began working for O.K. Farms in June 2012. His job was "to open and close doors . . . to keep the temperature inside those trailers at a range where the chickens would still be healthy." Id. at 1061. Mr. Mize stated that, before the accident, he went into the chicken house. He further testified as follows:
Id. at 983-85, 989-90, 992-97, 1046, 1051.
Mr. Ford provided the following testimony regarding the training he received from Hunt:
App. at 1376-85.
Mr. Ford testified that, on the day of the accident, he was accompanied by Mr. Mize, who was "summer help" hired by O.K. Farms, when he delivered the chickens to Mr. Gentry. Id. at 1397. He further testified:
Id. at 1400-05, 1410-11, 1416.
When asked further about Mr. Mize's role in the incident, Mr. Ford stated, "Maybe he glanced off or something when he wasn't supposed to. But anyhow, I can't see that side. He was supposed to have been watching. I don't know." Id. at 1418-19.
Mr. Ford's deposition testimony was cumulative of Mr. Gentry's and Mr. Mize's trial testimony. All three testified to the same basic facts: Mr. Ford drove the Moffett into the chicken house toward his blind spot; Mr. Gentry guided Mr. Ford from the front left of the Moffett; Mr. Mize spotted him from its back right; and Mr. Ford hit Jimmy.
The inferences of fault from Mr. Ford's testimony are also cumulative of the inferences from Mr. Gentry's and Mr. Mize's testimony. First, all three men's testimony could suggest Jimmy was at fault because they all said he stepped into the Moffett's path as it was moving toward him. Second, their testimony could suggest Mr. Ford was at fault because he drove directly into his blind spot. Third, their testimony could suggest Mr. Gentry was at fault because he directed Mr. Ford to move forward and then failed to warn him before he hit Jimmy. Fourth, their testimony could suggest Mr. Mize was at fault because he inadequately monitored Mr. Ford and failed to warn him of Jimmy's movements in time. Mr. Ford additionally suggested Mr. Mize may have "glanced off" at the moment of the accident. Id. at 1418.
In short, the facts and inferences available from Mr. Ford's testimony were cumulative of those from Mr. Gentry's and Mr. Mize's trial testimony.
Hunt's remaining arguments are unpersuasive. Hunt contends the absence of Mr. Ford's testimony made it appear "like Hunt had something to hide, or, in the alternative, that Hunt just did not care," particularly because counsel suggested during opening statements that Mr. Ford might appear, and at least one witness referenced Mr. Ford's deposition. Aplt. Br. at 41.
To show the exclusion of Mr. Ford's deposition affected its substantial rights, Hunt must do more than make speculative and unsubstantiated assertions of juror anger. It must show how Mr. Ford's deposition testimony might have affected the out-come in light of other evidence in "the record as a whole." McInnis, 458 F.3d at 1142. It fails to do so. For this same reason, Hunt's conclusory assertion that Mr. Ford's "appearance would be a human face on the allegations of liability against Hunt, a corporate entity" is unavailing, Aplt. Br. at 33, an argument that makes even less sense as applied to use of the deposition.
Hunt also contends it was prejudiced because Mr. Ford was the "only witness with `on-site' knowledge of the specific conditions, actions and movements of those present, and decisions made at the time of the accident." Id. at 32. But Mr. Gentry and Mr. Mize testified to specific conditions, actions, movements, and decisions made at the time of the accident based on personal knowledge. Hunt's assertion is further belied by Mr. Ford's series of answers, stating "I don't know."
Finally, Hunt argues Mr. Ford's deposition would have addressed "how the more-than-sufficient training Hunt provided him figured into his conduct." Id. at 32-33. Mr. Ford testified he received four days of training in Dallas, including a road test, and weeks of additional Moffett training in Oklahoma, including videos. He said that he passed every test during training and drove a Moffett in front of his supervisor.
Hunt does not explain, nor can we discern, how this testimony could have influenced the outcome in light of the other evidence admitted at trial. Hunt fails to explain how Mr. Ford's testimony about his training "figured into his conduct," id., or affected the outcome of trial.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude the record does not show the exclusion of Mr. Ford's deposition testimony prejudiced Hunt. We therefore affirm the district court's denial of Hunt's Rule 59 motion on this issue because the court did not abuse its discretion.
We also affirm the district court's denial of Hunt's motion for a new trial based on the jury award or, alternatively, remittitur.
"Under the Erie doctrine, federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law and federal procedural law." Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 427, 116 S.Ct. 2211, 135 L.Ed.2d 659 (1996). In evaluating jury awards more specifically, federal district courts sitting in diversity apply state law "controlling compensation awards for excessiveness or inadequacy." Id. at 419, 116 S.Ct. 2211; see also Prager v. Campbell Cty. Memorial Hosp., 731 F.3d 1046, 1062 (10th Cir.2013) ("[S]tate law governs the propriety of an award of damages—that is, whether it is excessive or inadequate." (quotations omitted)). Appellate review of a district court's ruling on a jury award is "limited to review for abuse of
"We review the district court's decision to deny a new trial or remittitur under an abuse of discretion standard." Smith v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 214 F.3d 1235, 1251 (10th Cir.2000). "In order to establish an abuse of discretion, the party that moved unsuccessfully for a new trial on the basis of an excessive verdict carries the heavy burden of demonstrating that the verdict was clearly, decidedly, or overwhelmingly against the weight of the evidence." Hynes v. Energy W., Inc., 211 F.3d 1193, 1206 (10th Cir.2000) (quotations omitted). We consider a jury's "determination of fact is considered inviolate" absent an award "so excessive or inadequate as to shock the judicial conscience and to raise an irresistible inference that passion, prejudice, corruption or other improper cause invaded the trial." Id. (quotations omitted). We do so because
Prager, 731 F.3d at 1063 (quotations and citations omitted).
Finally, "[a]s the reviewing court, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party." Whiteley v. OKC Corp., 719 F.2d 1051, 1058 (10th Cir.1983); see also Prager; 731 F.3d at 1063 ("[T]he amount of damages awarded by a jury can be supported by any competent evidence tending to sustain it." (quotations omitted)).
Under Oklahoma's wrongful death statute, recoverable damages include "[m]edical and burial expenses," the "mental pain and anguish suffered by the decedent," and the "grief and loss of companionship of the children and parents of the decedent." Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 1053(B).
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has acknowledged the difficulty of quantifying damages based on pain and suffering and loss of companionship. See Carraco Oil Co. v. Morhain, 380 P.2d 957, 959 (Okla.1963) ("There is no yardstick by which the loss of companionship can be measured. . . ." (quotations omitted)); Denco Bus Lines v. Hargis, 204 Okla. 339, 229 P.2d 560, 563 (1951) ("[T]here is no market where pain and suffering are bought and sold, nor any standard by which compensation for it can be definitely ascertained, or the amount actually endured determined." (quotations and brackets omitted)). Oklahoma law accordingly only "supports the granting of a new trial where the inadequacy or excessiveness of an award, in and of itself, evidences that the passion and partiality inhering in it are so clear as to strike mankind, at first blush, as being beyond all measure unreasonable and outrageous." West v. Bd. of
Mr. Hill's infectious disease expert, Dr. Steven O'Marro, reviewed Jimmy's medical records and testified that Jimmy was a smoker and suffered from various pre-existing medical conditions, including diabetes, high blood pressure, and obstructive pulmonary disease. The accident fractured Jimmy's ankle. He underwent an operation on September 10. At his follow-up appointment on October 5, his pain was increasing, and his wound was not healing well. His doctor noted the possibility of osteomyelitis, meaning a bone infection, and stated the infected plate in Jimmy's ankle may need to be removed. The pain and pain medications, in turn, interfered with Jimmy's diet and digestion, exacerbating his diabetes, increasing his blood sugar levels, and causing constipation.
On October 10, Jimmy was admitted to the hospital and never left. His records note decreased cognition, a urinary tract infection (UTI), two kinds of bacteria in his ankle, constipation, diarrhea, ischemic colitis, chronic liver inflammation, sepsis, and low blood pressure. His right ankle was draining puss, and there was a deep lateral opening. Jimmy's physicians began to administer total parenteral nutrition ("TPN")—intravenous nutrition—because of his difficulty eating.
On October 24, Jimmy underwent a second surgery to remove the infected hardware in his ankle. Jimmy was transferred to long-term acute care ("LTAC") on October 30, where he was treated with intravenous antibiotic therapy. While in the LTAC unit, he contracted fungal sepsis, which is yeast in the blood, and was admitted to the intensive care unit. He died on December 2. His death certificate stated the immediate cause of death was fungal sepsis, and the contributing cause was osteomyelitis.
Jimmy's medical bills, which were stipulated to by the parties and read to the jury, totaled $80,065.84. Jimmy's burial expenses were $2,695.
At trial, Mr. Hill testified he had a good relationship with his father. He grew up spending approximately every other weekend and many summers with Jimmy, as his parents were divorced. As an adult, Mr. Hill, who lived in California, spoke with Jimmy by phone about every month or every other month.
Beginning October 10, Mr. Hill contacted Jimmy or another family member every day regarding Jimmy's health. Sometime in November, Mr. Hill flew to Oklahoma and began visiting his father in the hospital every day. He testified it was "difficult" and "tough to see" his father, who looked like he had "aged a lot from the last time [he] had seen him." Id. at 1031. He had lost a "lot of weight," and "his leg wasn't as big around as [Mr. Hill's] wrist." Id. Mr. Hill "wasn't completely prepared" to see Jimmy in such a state. Id.
Mr. Hill described the experience of packing up his father's belongings as "without a doubt the most difficult thing I have had to do." Id. at 1041. Jimmy was "[a]bsolutely" a role model to him, adding, "the kind of man that I am today, the kind of father I am today, I owe it all to him." Id. at 1040-41. Mr. Hill sought counseling after his father's death.
The district court instructed the jury it could award damages based on the following:
App. at 381.
The jury awarded Mr. Hill $3.4 million. It found Mr. Gentry 2% at fault and Hunt 98% at fault. It therefore awarded Mr. Hill $3.332 million payable by Hunt.
We affirm the district court's denial of Hunt's motion for a new trial based on the jury award or remittitur.
Hunt challenges the district court's decision on two grounds. First, it contends the jury granted an excessive award because the court refused to compel Mr. Ford's attendance or admit his deposition testimony. We reject this argument for the reasons explained above. The court acted within its discretion in declining to issue a bench warrant, and any error it committed in excluding the deposition did not affect Hunt's substantial rights.
Second, Hunt contends the jury award was excessive, even assuming the district court committed no error regarding Mr. Ford. We disagree. Mr. Hill offered ample evidence from which the jury could assess Jimmy's pain and suffering, his medical bills, his burial expenses, and Mr. Hill's grief and loss of companionship. Hunt does not contest the admissibility of any of this evidence, nor does it challenge the court's damages instructions. It only argues the jury award was generally excessive. We find this argument unconvincing. The jury had wide latitude to choose an award based on the evidence. See Prager, 731 F.3d at 1063 ("The jury, who has the first-handed opportunity to hear the testimony and to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, is clothed with a wide latitude and discretion in fixing damages. . . ." (quotations omitted)); West, 273 P.3d at 32 (explaining Oklahoma law only "supports the granting of a new trial" where a jury award is "beyond all measure unreasonable and outrageous"). And the district court had broad discretion to accept it. See Hynes, 211 F.3d at 1206 ("In order to establish an abuse of discretion, the party that moved unsuccessfully for a new trial on the basis of an excessive verdict carries the heavy burden of demonstrating that the verdict was clearly, decidedly, or overwhelmingly against the weight of the evidence." (quotations omitted)); see also West, 273 P.3d at 36 ("The judge who presides at the trial[;] hears the testimony; observes the witnesses; and has full knowledge of the proceedings during the trial process. . . . is in the best position to know whether substantial justice has been done."). In only suggesting the award was excessive, Hunt fails to carry its burden.
Finally, Hunt suggests the award was excessive in light of damages awarded in a variety of other cases, most of which are from other states and circuits. We are unpersuaded. Both this court and Oklahoma courts discourage comparisons to awards from other cases.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
