Rivas v. Harper

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