verdict that conflated liability and damages. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial based on the verdict being an improper compromise. Mekdeci ex rel. Mekdeci v. Merrell Nat'l Labs., 711 F.2d 1510, 1513 (11th Cir.1983). Federal law governs the decision whether or not to grant a new trial, but an issue of the sufficiency of damages awarded for a state claim is decided under state law. Hattaway v. McMillian, 903 F.2d 1440, 1451 (11th Cir.1990). A motion for a new trial under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 must be granted “when the issues of liability and damages were tried together and there are indications that the jury may have rendered a compromise verdict.” Mekdeci, 711 F.2d at 1513 (quoting Lucas v. Am. Mfg. C 528, 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (<HOLDING>); see also Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d
holding that there was an impermissible compromise because the damages award was inadequate and liability was hotly disputed by the parties and struggled over by the jury holding that defense of fraud was waived where no special issue was submitted and there was disputed evidence holding that jurys damagesrelated questions and verdict of liability with clearly inadequate damages of only medical expenses but no noneconomic damages in case where liability was hotly contested strongly suggested compromised verdict holding that whether the gerrymandering at issue was the product of impermissible racial motivation was a disputed fact and that it was error in this case for the district court to resolve the disputed fact of motivation at the summary judgment stage holding that there was an impermissible compromise where the damages award was inadequate liability was hotly contested at trial the jury was deadlocked the court charged the jury to continue deliberating to reach a decision and less than one hour later the jury returned a verdict