Rufo v. OJ Simpson - Right Of Publicity

Page 37
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - -
[**80]
Simpson contends the amount of $ 8.5 million is excessive, in other
words
that the evidence concerning the parents' loss is insufficient to
justify the
jury's verdict in such a large amount. He contends that Sharon Rufo's
relationship with Ronald was not particularly close and affectionate,
and even
if Goldman's relationship with Ronald was close and affectionate, it
does not
justify an award of $ 8.5 million for the loss of comfort from an adult
son who
was living independently away from the parental home at the time of
death.
Simpson urged this point in a motion for new trial on the ground of
excessive
damages, [***521] which the trial court considered and denied.
We have very narrow appellate review of the jury's determination of
the
amount of compensation for the parents' loss of comfort and society.
First, the
contention that the evidence does not support the verdict is reviewed
under the
substantial evidence standard. In reviewing a claim of insufficiency of
evidence, the appellate court must consider the whole record, view the
evidence
in the light most favorable to the judgment, presume every fact the
trier of
fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence, and defer to the trier
[**81]
of fact's determination of the weight and credibility of the evidence.
(
DiRosario v. Havens (1987) 196 Cal. App. 3d 1224, 1240, 242 Cal. Rptr.
423;
Fagerquist v. Western Sun Aviation, Inc. (1987) 191 Cal. App. 3d 709,
727, 236
Cal. Rptr. 633.) Second, the appellate court ordinarily defers to the
trial
court's denial of a motion for new trial based on excessive damages,
because of
the trial judge's greater familiarity with the case. ( Bertero v.
National
General Corp. (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 43, 64, 118 Cal. Rptr. 184, 529 P.2d
608; Pool
v. City of Oakland (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 1051, 1067, 232 Cal. Rptr. 528,
728 P.2d
1163.) The trial judge has greater discretion to reduce the damages on
a motion
for new trial than the appellate court has on appeal. If the trial
judge denied
the motion, concluding the award was not excessive, the appellate court
gives