This is an example of seventh amendment. This document is useful in conducting a study on seventh amendment.
Shared by: PastorGallo
“Federal Tort Reform and the Seventh Amendment” AALS Section on Civil Procedure Program: The Civil Jury in the Shadow of Tort Reform Professor Suja A. Thomas University of Cincinnati College of Law Seventh Amendment “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by jury, shall be otherwise re- examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474 (1935). The Supreme Court stated “it therefore may be that, if the question of remittitur were now before us for the first time, it would be decided otherwise.” In holding additur unconstitutional, the Court declined to extend the “doubtful precedent” of remittitur to additur. Boyd v. Bulala, 877 F.2d 1191 (4th Cir. 1989). The Fourth Circuit stated “it is not the role of the jury to determine the legal consequences of its factual findings. That is a matter for the legislature . . ..” Moreover, the court stated that “[i]f a legislature may completely abolish a cause of action without violating the right of trial by jury, we think it permissibly may limit damages recoverable for a cause of action as well.” In the case, the court held that a Virginia cap on medical malpractice damages was constitutional under the Seventh Amendment. Davis v. Omitowoju, 883 F.2d 1155 (3rd Cir. 1989). The Third Circuit stated “[i]t is significant to us that unlike the first clause of the Seventh Amendment which in broad terms preserves the right to a trial by jury, the second clause speaks exclusively of the role of the court. The second clause makes no mention of the other branches of government.” The court held that a Virgin Island medical malpractice cap was constitutional because the Seventh Amendment prohibits the courts, not the legislature, from re-examining a jury’s findings. Smith v. Botsford General Hospital, 419 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2005). Citing the reasoning in Boyd, the Sixth Circuit held that a Michigan medical malpractice damages cap was constitutional under the Seventh Amendment.