Short answer. No new trial is required just because the damages awarded were excessive. Rule 37, Section 3 lets the trial court amend the judgment directly and lower the award, without disturbing the rest of the case, once it finds the damages excessive or the decision contrary to the evidence or the law.
What the law says
If the court finds that excessive damages have been awarded or that the judgment or final order is contrary to the evidence or law, it may amend such judgment or final order accordingly.
Rule 37, Section 3 — Action upon motion for new trial or reconsideration. Read the full provision →
Two different remedies under the same rule
On a motion for new trial or reconsideration, Rule 37, Section 3 gives the trial court three options: grant a new trial, deny the motion outright, or amend the judgment. The trial court may set aside the judgment or final order and grant a new trial, upon such terms as may be just, or may deny the motion. A new trial reopens the case for further proceedings; amending the judgment does not — it corrects the existing decision without restarting the trial.
When excessive damages are the ground
The rule specifically addresses excessive damages as a ground separate from ordering a full new trial. If the court finds that excessive damages have been awarded or that the judgment or final order is contrary to the evidence or law, it may amend such judgment or final order accordingly. In practice this means the court can simply revise the figures in the dispositive portion, reducing the award to what the evidence supports, instead of sending the whole case back for retrial.
Why amendment, not retrial, is typical for this ground
A new trial is generally reserved for situations that require additional evidence or a fresh look at the merits, such as newly discovered evidence or irregularities that affected the fairness of the proceedings. Excessive damages, by contrast, is usually a question of applying the correct measure of damages to evidence already on record. Because the underlying facts are not in dispute, the trial court can correct the figure directly by amending the judgment, without disturbing the rest of the findings, unless it separately finds a need to admit new evidence or reopen the proceedings.
What the court actually decides
Whether damages are treated as excessive, and whether the fix is a straight reduction or a new trial, remains the trial court's call after weighing the motion and any opposition. Nothing in the rule requires it to order a new trial merely because the amount awarded was too high. The same section that recognizes excessive damages as a ground also gives the court the authority to amend the judgment accordingly, and courts generally use that more measured option when the record itself can support a corrected figure.