on the valuation to place upon [the plaintiff’s] remote contributory negligence.”). Based upon our extensive review of this voluminous record, we have determined that the only prejudicial errors in the trial were Judge Wimberly’s improper supplemental instructions encouraging the jury to recalculate the amount of the verdict, and his failure to independently assess the amoun s not against the clear weight of the evidence, it shall enter judgment on the amount determined by the jury. If, however, the trial court does find that the amount of damages is against the clear weight of the evidence, the court should suggest an appropriate additur or remittitur, with the alternative of granting a partial new trial. See Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 914-15 (2d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); see also Pomeroy v. III. Cent. R.R., No.
holding that in civil theft claim once jury sets the amount of actual damages it is a ministerial act for the trial court to triple those damages and enter final judgment in that amount holding that the trial court on remand erred when it adopted a new theory of damages contrary to the order of the court of appeals holding that when a trial court determines that the amount of damages awarded by a jury is excessive the court may either suggest remittitur or grant a new trial on the issue of damages holding that issue of attorneys fees should be retried if damages awarded are reduced on appeal and appellate court can not be reasonably certain that trial court was not influenced by erroneous damages award holding that the trial court can and should grant a new trial if the manifest weight of the evidence is contrary to the verdict