Dorritt Van Deusen Woodhouse v. Lorenzo E. Woodhouse

Summary

The court held that the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find that the defendants maliciously and actively interfered with their son's marriage and were the controlling cause of the plaintiff's loss of consortium. It rejected the defendants' evidentiary, argument, jury-instruction, and verdict challenges, including their objections to circumstantial proof, evidence of financial condition, and the use of a remittitur to reduce excessive damages. Watson, C. J., concurring in part and dissenting in part, would have required a greater reduction of damages and granted a new trial based on juror misconduct.