 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fisher v. Smithson2/19/2003
sel prepares it, and the court makes its finding of fact in accordance with the jury's findings in exactly the same manner."
The transcript of the hearing on the Motion for New Trial reflects that although the trial judge asserts that she granted the motion because the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, she was very troubled by the length of time of jury deliberations and that was in fact the primary basis for granting the new trial. She repeatedly acknowledges that expert witnesses for both parties disagreed and many issues were "close questions." She also repeatedly made reference to the short time of the jury's deliberation.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge stated: "I don't want to analyze the evidence as a juror and I want to weigh if (sic) I think it meets the standard manifest weight of the evidence without a directed verdict. Had the jury taken longer to deliberate, I might not have granted this motion. For those reasons, that's my ruling." The majority suggests that this statement must be interpreted as no more than extraneous judicial musings. To the contrary, the "judicial musings" are the trial judge's attempt to justify granting the new trial without articulable and sustainable reasons. With the issues of negligence and causation being hotly contested, and with expert testimony supporting each side, I fail to understand how the verdict could be contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Saying that this verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence does not make it so.
The length of time of the jury's deliberation has no bearing on whether the verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, and is not a basis for granting a new trial. Therefore, I dissent.
|