A. In any action at law in which the trial court requires a plaintiff to remit a part of his recovery, as ascertained by the verdict of a jury, or else submit to a new trial, such plaintiff may remit and accept judgment of the court thereon for the reduced sum under protest, but, notwithstanding such remittitur and acceptance, if under protest, may appeal the judgment of the court in requiring him to remit to the Court of Appeals. The defendant may appeal the judgment of the court in requiring such remittitur to the Court of Appeals, regardless of the amount. If an appeal is taken from the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, in matters in which it grants the petition for appeal, shall review the judgment, regardless of amount.
B. In any action at law when the court finds as a matter of law that the damages awarded by the jury are inadequate, the trial court may (i) award a new trial or (ii) require the defendant to pay an amount in excess of the recovery of the plaintiff found in the verdict. If either the plaintiff or the defendant declines to accept such additional award, the trial court shall award a new trial.
If additur pursuant to this subsection is accepted by either party under protest, it may be reviewed on appeal.
Code 1950, § 8-350; 1977, c. 617; 1994, c. 807; 1998, c. 861; 2021, Sp. Sess. I, c. 489.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
71
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case:
Supinger v. Stakes, 495 S.E.2d 813 (Va. 1998).
Supinger v. Stakes, 495 S.E.2d 813 (Va. 1998).
· cites it 94× “See Code § 8.01-383.1. Inherent in such a conclusion is the trial court's finding that the jury was "influenced by passion, corruption or prejudice" or "misconceived or misunderstood the facts or the law," and that, therefore, the verdict was not "the product of a fair and…”
Poulston v. Rock, 467 S.E.2d 479 (Va. 1996).
· cites it 12× “Pursuant to Code § 8.01-383.1(A), [1] the trial court entered a final order granting judgment in favor of Poulston but remitting the damage award to "$1,000 compensatory and $2,500 punitive or else there will be a new trial on all issues.”
Gazette, Inc. v. Harris, 325 S.E.2d 713 (Va. 1985).
· cites it 4× “The court should have granted the motion and then considered requiring the plaintiff to remit a portion of the award or submit to a new trial under the provisions of Code § 8.01-383.1. Section 6 of Article VI of the Virginia Constitution, dealing with the power of this Court…”
Walker v. Mason, 510 S.E.2d 734 (Va. 1999).
· cites it 8× “” The trial court, applying the additur statute, Code § 8.01-383.1(B) (1994) (amended 1998), entered judgment for $7,730.”
Kollman v. Jordan, 612 S.E.2d 203 (Va. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Kollman acceded to the remitted award and reserved his right to appeal pursuant to Code § 8.01-383.1. The trial court entered an order to that effect and both parties filed notices of appeal.”
Gov't Micro Resources, Inc. v. Jackson, 624 S.E.2d 63 (Va. 2006).
· cites it 2× “Remittitur The trial court set aside the jury's $5 million compensatory damage award for defamation and ordered remittitur of $4 million leaving a compensatory damage award of $1 million.”
Caldwell v. Seaboard Sys. RR, Inc., 380 S.E.2d 910 (Va. 1989).
· cites it 4× “For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the action of the trial court in denying the motion to dismiss. Requirement of Remittitur (Record No. 870481) Because we have sustained the trial court's action in denying the motion to dismiss, we decide whether it abused its discretion…”
Shepard v. Capitol Foundry of Virginia, Inc., 554 S.E.2d 72 (Va. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to Code § 8.01-383.1(A), the plaintiff elected to accept the remitted sums under protest rather than to submit to a new trial on all issues.”
Ford Motor Co. v. Bartholomew, 297 S.E.2d 675 (Va. 1982).
· cites it 2× “He may put the plaintiff on terms to accept a remittitur in lieu of a new trial, Code § 8.01-383.1, or he may grant the defendant a new trial limited to damages, Code § 8.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-383.1(8) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-383.1(A) — 5 cases
Poulston v. Rock, 467 S.E.2d 479 (Va. 1996).
“Pursuant to Code § 8.01-383.1(A), [1] the trial court entered a final order granting judgment in favor of Poulston but remitting the damage award to "$1,000 compensatory and $2,500 punitive or else there will be a new trial on all issues.”
Supinger v. Stakes, 495 S.E.2d 813 (Va. 1998).
“See Code § 8.01-383.1. Inherent in such a conclusion is the trial court's finding that the jury was "influenced by passion, corruption or prejudice" or "misconceived or misunderstood the facts or the law," and that, therefore, the verdict was not "the product of a fair and…”
Shepard v. Capitol Foundry of Virginia, Inc., 554 S.E.2d 72 (Va. 2001).
“Pursuant to Code § 8.01-383.1(A), the plaintiff elected to accept the remitted sums under protest rather than to submit to a new trial on all issues.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-383.1(B) — 20 cases
Supinger v. Stakes, 495 S.E.2d 813 (Va. 1998).
“See Code § 8.01-383.1. Inherent in such a conclusion is the trial court's finding that the jury was "influenced by passion, corruption or prejudice" or "misconceived or misunderstood the facts or the law," and that, therefore, the verdict was not "the product of a fair and…”
Walker v. Mason, 510 S.E.2d 734 (Va. 1999).
“” The trial court, applying the additur statute, Code § 8.01-383.1(B) (1994) (amended 1998), entered judgment for $7,730.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.