and suffering. The jury was also instructed that its award should be "just
and reasonable in light of the evidence." Applying these instructions, it
was possible that the jury determined that appellants' pain and suffering
during their respective recovery processes did not rise to a level that
warranted compensation. Weaver Bros., 98 Nev. at 234, 645 P.2d at 439;
see Stackiewicz v. Nissan Motor Corp., 100 Nev. 443, 454-55, 686 P.2d 925,
932 (1984) ("[T]he elements of pain and suffering are wholly subjective. It
can hardly be denied that, because of their very nature, a determination of
their monetary compensation falls peculiarly within the province of the
jury." (internal quotation omitted)). Consequently, the district court was
within its discretion to deny appellants' motion for a new trial Nelson,
123 Nev. at 223, 163 P.3d at 424-25. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Pickering
-2---":ThiSly'
Parraguirre Saitta
'For the same reasons, the district court was within its discretion to
deny appellants' request for additur. Donaldson v. Anderson, 109 Nev.
1039, 1042, 862 P.2d 1204, 1206 (1993) (recognizing that a district court
has discretion to deny additur and that such discretion is abused only
when the "damages are clearly inadequate or shocking to the court's
conscience" (internal quotation omitted)). Likewise, while appellants
challenge the district court's award of attorney fees and costs, that
challenge is dependent on their arguments regarding the denial of their
motion for additur or a new trial. Consequently, we affirm the award of
fees and costs.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
10) 1047A e
cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge
Eva Garcia-Mendoza, Settlement Judge
Henness & Haight
Emerson & Manke, LLP
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A ea