 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gloyd v. Tabatt2/18/2003
best position to make that determination, did not err in finding that the statement did not prejudice the jury.
Accident or Surprise
A trial court has great discretion in granting a new trial on the basis of surprise under Minn. R. Civ. P. 59.01(c). Sward v. Nash, 230 Minn. 100, 109, 40 N.W.2d 828, 833 (1950). Such a motion should be granted only if there is a strong possibility that a new trial would have a different result. Id. A trial court's decision on such matters will not be disturbed on appeal without a showing of a clear abuse of discretion. Schiro v. Raymond, 237 Minn. 271, 277, 54 N.W.2d 329, 333 (1952).
An accident or surprise is an act that "could not have been prevented by ordinary prudence." Minn. R. Civ. P. 59.01(c). Further, " nowledge of what testimony will or will not be precludes surprise." Swanson v. Williams, 303 Minn. 433, 435, 228 N.W.2d 860, 862 (1975) (citation omitted). Here, Gloyd knew the content of the videotaped testimony before it was presented to the jury, so its viewing—though unintended—cannot properly be considered surprise. Rather, this situation is more like a "mistake" akin to a witness giving unanticipated, inadmissible testimony, and the court instructing the jury to disregard the inadmissible portion of the testimony.
The trial court here provided such an instruction, determined that it "was sufficient to remedy the mistake," and ruled that granting a new trial would not be "in the furtherance of substantial justice." See Leuba v. Bailey, 251 Minn. 193, 207-08, 88 N.W.2d 73, 83 (1957). The trial court's decision is supported by the record. The trial court acted within its discretion when it ruled that this instruction sufficiently remedied the mistake and that there is not a strong possibility that a new trial would have a different result.
Because the mistake was promptly and sufficiently remedied through the court's instruction, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|