that the district court properly exercised its discretion in considering prior case law and the specific details of the chse. Because “inadequacy ... of the verdict is basically, and should be, a matter for the trial court which has had the benefit of hearing the testimony and of observing the demeanor of the witnesses and which knows the community and its standards,” Solomon Dehydrating Co. v. Guyton, 294 F.2d 439, 447 (8th Cir.1961), we must defer to the district court’s assessment of damages unless there is “ ‘plain injustice’ or a ‘monstrous’ or ‘shocking’ result.” Id. at 448. As a result, we review the district court’s determination of the damage award for abuse of discretion. See Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, 518 U.S. 415, 434-35, 116 S.Ct. 2211, 135 L.Ed.2d 659 (1996) (<HOLDING>). In addition, the FTCA grants broad discretion
recognizing that we review the sentence imposed by a district court under the abuse of discretion standard holding that appellate courts should review district court determinations of the adequacy of damage awards under an abuse of discretion standard holding that rule 702 admissibility determinations are reviewable under an abuse of discretion standard holding that the standard of review under rule 60 is abuse of discretion holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion