Joel G. Wiersum and Darlene Wiersum, Appellants v. Paul R. Harder and Lisa W. Wietfeld, Appellee — Stowers, J…

Summary

This dissent argues that the court misapplied the deferential standard governing review of a denial of judgment notwithstanding the verdict by reweighing conflicting expert testimony and relying on evidence favorable to the moving parties. It would uphold the jury's restoration-damages award because the jury was properly instructed, found an objectively reasonable personal reason for restoration, and awarded an amount within the range supported by the evidence. The dissenting and concurring opinions contest the proper treatment of the restoration award, including whether a new trial, remittitur, or retrial on the personal-reason issue is required.