One of the most sacred components of the Anglo-American Justice System is the right to a jury trial, which is a constitutionally protected right. Historically, the courts have maintained great deference to a jury verdict.

In a recent medical malpractice case that produced a 50 million dollar verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, the New Jersey Supreme Court revisited the  principles of law that control a trial court's analysis of determining whether a verdict is excessive. Specifically, the court observed that where trial court can ordinarily allow its "feel of the case" in personal injury claims  to determine whether the jury's verdict was influenced by improper motive, where the verdict is of such magnitude as to be "historic", the court must conduct a careful and searching review to make sure that the parties were justly treated by the jury.

In determining that the verdict was excessive in the case subject of its review, the Court observed that the  50 million dollar verdict succeeded even the plaintiff's counsel suggestion during closing arguments.