 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stallworth v. Boren8/20/2002
g understanding that "a stronger case must be made for interfering with the exercise of [the trial court's] discretion where a new trial has been granted than where it has been refused[.]" Ahmi v. Cornwell, 14 Haw. 301, 302-3 (1902) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). All the same, although Hawaii courts have not expressly defined the term "manifest weight," it appears to be a demanding standard upon which to grant a motion for new trial premised on the weight of evidence:
A trial court may set aside a jury verdict when it appears to be "so manifestly against the weight of the evidence as to indicate bias, prejudice, passion, or misunderstanding of the charge . . . on the part of the jury; or . . . for any legal cause." HRS ยง 635-56; Rule 59, HRCP. But it must be remembered that respect for the jury's assessment of the evidence is constitutionally mandated. Harkins v. Ikeda, 57 Haw. 378, 381, 557 P.2d 788, 791 (1976) (footnote omitted; ellipses in the original). Cf. Peterson v. City and County of Honolulu, 53 Haw. 440, 442, 496 P.2d 4, 7 (1972) (affirming the trial court's denial of a motion for new trial where the evidence was "evenly balanced[,]" and noting in passing that a motion for new trial "could be granted" where "one party's evidence clearly outweighs the other party's evidence"); Stewart v. Brennan, 7 Haw. App. 136, 147, 748 P.2d 816, 824 (1988) (in the course of holding that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial, noting that "there was substantial evidence presented at trial to support the verdict"). See also Duncan v. Duncan, 377 F.2d 49, 52 (6th Cir. 1967) ("while the district judge has a duty to intervene [to grant a new trial where the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence], the jury's verdict should be accepted if it is one which could reasonably have been reached"); Carter v. Johnson, 617 N.E.2d 260, 266-67 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993) ("A court should set aside a jury verdict and grant a new trial only where the verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. A verdict will be deemed against the manifest weight of the evidence only if it is palpably erroneous and wholly unwarranted, clearly the result of passion or prejudice, or appears to be arbitrary, unreasonable, and not based on the evidence." (Citations omitted.)); Knuth v. Emergency Care Consultants, 644 N.W.2d 106, 113 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002) ("A new trial may be granted by a district court only if the verdict is so contrary to the preponderance of the evidence as to imply that the jury failed to consider all the evidence or acted under some mistake or from some improper motive, bias, feeling or caprice, instead of honestly and dispassionately exercising its judgment." (Citation and internal block quote format omitted.)).
Moreover, as our supreme court has recognized, the grant of a new trial after a jury verdict is of constitutional moment. Harkins, 57 Haw. at 381, 557 P.2d at 791. The United States Supreme Court has elaborated this point, in the context of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict:
In holding that there was no evidence upon which to base the jury's inference as to causation, the court below emphasized other inferences which are suggested by the conflicting evidence.
It is not the function of a court to search the record for conflicting circumstantial evidence in order to take the case away from the jury on a theory that the proof gives equal support to inconsistent and uncertain inferences. The focal point of judicial review is the reasonableness of the particular inference or conclusion drawn by the jury. It is the jury, not the court, which is the fact-finding body. It weighs the contradictory evidence and inferences, judges
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|