 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Welch v. Haase12/3/2003
uncontested evidence and was the result of passion, prejudice or mistake of law:
he jury is free to believe all, some, or none of the testimony presented by a witness. However, this rule is tempered by the requirement that the verdict must not be a product of passion, prejudice, partiality, or corruption, or must bear some reasonable relation to the loss suffered by the plaintiff as demonstrated by uncontroverted evidence presented at trial. The synthesis of these conflicting rules is that a jury is entitled to reject any and all evidence up until the point at which the verdict is so disproportionate to the uncontested evidence as to defy common sense and logic.
Neison v. Hines, 653 A2d 634, 637 (Pa 1995) (internal citations omitted). As a general proposition, we agree with this rule. We therefore proceed to consider its applicability to each motion and each defendant.
Motion for JNOV
. Our review of motions for JNOV is conducted under the abuse of discretion standard. Fechner v. Case, 2003 SD 37, , 660 NW2d 631, 633.
Rulings on motions for judgment notwithstanding verdict are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. Evidence and inferences most favorable to the nonmoving party are examined to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the jury's judgment. Conflicting evidence is not reweighed; witness credibility is not reassessed. The moving party's evidence is only given consideration if it is uncontradicted or tends to amplify, clarify or explain evidence which supports the verdict.
Id. at 633-34 (internal citations omitted).
. On appeal and at the original motions hearing, Welch only argued that "the trial was fundamentally unfair." He explained:
I don't know if judgment notwithstanding the verdict is the right thing, and I don't know whether a new trial is the right thing, Your Honor. I think, though, that at some level, we need to step back from the case and just say, what is fair? What was presented? What arguments were considered? And then try to decide what should be done to correct the wrong that the jury committed.
We review this argument as it relates to the Haases and then as to the Kleins.
a. Allen and Zenda Haase
. We first observe that there is no general "fairness" standard to be considered under a motion for JNOV; rather, the standard is "whether there is substantial evidence to support the jury's judgment." See supra . Furthermore, that evidence must be reviewed "in a light most favorable to the verdict." C & W Enters., Inc. v. City of Sioux Falls, 2001 SD 132, , 635 NW2d 752, 756. Considering the appropriate standard of review, the trial court could not have granted a JNOV against the Haases unless the court determined that, as a matter of law, Haases were negligent; Caz's negligence, if any, was slight; Caz did not assume the risk; and, that the Hasses' negligence proximately caused the accident and damages. However, Haases submitted evidence in support of these defenses. Therefore, those issues became questions for the jury, and this Court does not reweigh the facts supporting those defenses. Considering the evidence Haases submitted on these issues, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Welch's motion for JNOV.
b. Darby Klein and Earla Klein
. The motion for JNOV against the Kleins is subject to a procedural defect. A motion for JNOV is linked to a party's motion for directed verdict, which must first be brought before the trial court at the conclusion of evidence at trial. Therefore:
A motion for judgment n.o.v. "is based on and relates back to a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 South Dakota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|