Additur is a trial court procedure that lets a judge raise a jury’s damages award when the judge concludes the verdict was unreasonably low, by offering the defendant a choice: accept the higher amount the judge sets or submit to a new trial on damages. The term comes from Latin meaning roughly “it is added to.” It gives courts a way to correct verdicts that clearly shortchange an injured plaintiff without putting everyone through a full retrial. State courts in many jurisdictions permit it. Federal courts do not, and have not since the Supreme Court’s 1935 decision in Dimick v. Schiedt.1Legal Information Institute. Additur
When a Judge Will Find an Award Inadequate
Judges do not second-guess juries lightly. The award has to be so low that it has no reasonable relation to the plaintiff’s injuries, or grossly inadequate given undisputed evidence. The classic scenario: a plaintiff proves $80,000 in surgery bills and lost wages through documentation no one contested, and the jury returns $5,000. When the gap between proven losses and the verdict is that wide, something clearly went wrong in deliberation.
The analysis gets more nuanced with subjective categories like pain and suffering. A jury that awards every documented medical expense but nothing for pain is not necessarily wrong. Jurors are allowed to weigh credibility, and if they found the plaintiff’s testimony about ongoing pain unconvincing, a zero for that category can stand. Courts intervene when the evidence of pain is essentially uncontested and the jury still awards nothing, or when the verdict is internally inconsistent. The question is always whether any reasonable jury could have reached the number it did.
How the Procedure Works
After the verdict, the plaintiff files a post-trial motion, usually framed as a motion for a new trial based on inadequate damages. Timing is tight. Under the federal rule many states mirror, the motion must be filed within 28 days after the court enters judgment, and courts generally cannot extend that window.2Legal Information Institute. Rule 59 – New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment Missing it forfeits the challenge.
The motion has to do more than complain. The plaintiff must point to specific evidence the jury apparently ignored or misweighed. Some jurisdictions require the plaintiff to propose a dollar figure; others leave that to the judge. The defendant gets a chance to respond before the judge rules.
If the judge grants the motion, the judge then sets a corrected figure, and that number cannot be plucked from the air. It must be supported by credible proof already in the trial record. Courts sometimes describe the corrected figure as the lowest amount the evidence reasonably supports, which keeps the increase tethered to what was actually proven rather than what the judge personally thinks the case is worth.1Legal Information Institute. Additur
The Defendant’s Choice
Additur never results in a judge simply ordering the defendant to pay more. The court presents a choice: accept the higher amount or go through a new trial on damages. That conditional structure is what makes additur constitutional in states that permit it. The defendant’s consent preserves the jury trial right, because no one is forced to pay an amount no jury ever determined.1Legal Information Institute. Additur
If the defendant consents, the court enters judgment at the higher figure and the case ends. If the defendant refuses, the original verdict is thrown out and a new jury hears damages from scratch. That retrial is a gamble on both sides. The defendant risks a larger award from a second jury. The plaintiff risks the same low number plus months of additional litigation. That shared uncertainty is why most cases settle at the consent stage: both sides often prefer the known figure the judge proposes over rolling the dice again.
Additur Compared to Remittitur
Remittitur is the mirror image. Where additur raises an award the judge finds too low, remittitur cuts one the judge finds too high.3Legal Information Institute. Motion for New Trial The mechanics are nearly identical: the judge proposes a corrected amount, and the non-moving party either accepts it or faces a new trial. With remittitur, the plaintiff is the one who has to agree to take less or try the case again.
The twist that still frustrates legal scholars: remittitur is allowed in federal court, additur is not. The Supreme Court in Dimick v. Schiedt acknowledged the logic for the split was thin, and four dissenting justices argued the distinction made no sense at all.4Legal Information Institute. Dimick v. Schiedt The majority rested on history: remittitur had a long pedigree in English common law before the Seventh Amendment, and additur did not.
Why Federal Courts Do Not Allow It
The Supreme Court closed the door on additur in federal court in Dimick v. Schiedt in 1935. The plaintiff in that personal injury case received what the trial judge considered an inadequate award. The judge tried to fix it by ordering the defendant to accept a higher figure or face a new trial. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that this process violated the Seventh Amendment’s guarantee that “no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”4Legal Information Institute. Dimick v. Schiedt
The reasoning turned on history. At common law in 1791, when the Seventh Amendment was ratified, English courts had no established practice of raising jury awards. Lacking that pedigree, additur could not be adopted by federal judges. The practical result: a plaintiff with a low verdict in federal court has one remedy, a new trial. The judge cannot shortcut to a higher number.5Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 US 474 (1935)
State courts are not bound by the Seventh Amendment, which governs only federal proceedings. Many states have their own constitutional jury-trial provisions, and a number of them interpret those provisions to permit additur. Availability varies by jurisdiction, so whether this tool exists for a given case depends on which court system the lawsuit is in.1Legal Information Institute. Additur
Appeals
Either side can challenge an additur ruling on appeal. The appellate court reviews it for abuse of discretion, a deferential standard that does not reweigh evidence or substitute the appeals court’s view of what the damages should be. The question is whether the trial judge’s decision was so unreasonable no rational judge could have reached it. Trial judges sit through the whole case and are in the best position to evaluate whether the verdict matched the evidence, so appellate courts regularly defer. The most common successful appeal involves a trial judge who set the additur figure on evidence the jury was entitled to reject, effectively overriding the jury’s credibility calls rather than correcting an obvious gap between the verdict and undisputed proof.