 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Snell v. Jewell8/30/2002
UNPUBLISHED
In this personal injury case, plaintiff Jason Snell appeals as of right from a jury verdict against defendant James Jewell and the jury's finding of no liability against defendant Unger Enterprises Inc., d/b/a Empty Keg Party Store (Empty Keg). We affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
This case arises out of an automobile accident in which plaintiff suffered severe injuries. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that on the night of November 22-23, 1996, James Jewell was driving a car while intoxicated and collided with plaintiff's car. Plaintiff further alleged that defendants McBride's Avalon Bar, Inc. (Avalon Bar), and Sneaks, Inc., d/b/a Bar One (Bar One), were liable for serving Jewell alcohol while he was visibly intoxicated. Thereafter, plaintiff amended his complaint to include defendant Empty Keg Party Store, and alleged that, on the night of the collision, employees of the store sold alcohol to Jewell when he was visibly intoxicated.
At trial, Jewell testified that, after drinking five or six beers and sharing two marijuana "joints," he bought a twenty-two-ounce can of beer and a pint of schnapps at Empty Keg. Thereafter, Jewell walked to a friends' house, consumed the alcohol he bought, drank two more beers and smoked two more joints. Jewell then returned to Empty Keg and bought a forty-ounce beer and a fifth of schnapps. Jewell returned to his friends' house and continued to drink alcohol and smoke marijuana. Jewell further testified that, at approximately 9:30 p.m., he walked to Empty Keg again and bought a fifth of whiskey. Within the next thirty minutes, Jewell drank two shots of whiskey and three more cans of beer. Jewell then left his friends' house and continued to drink at Bar One and Avalon Bar. Defendant later stole a car and ultimately collided with plaintiff's vehicle and pushed plaintiff's vehicle into a tree.
Bar One and Avalon Bar settled with plaintiff shortly before trial. Following the close of proofs, the jury returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor and allocated eighty percent fault to Jewell, twenty percent fault to Sneaks/Bar One, and allocated no fault to the remaining defendants, including Empty Keg.
II. Analysis
A. Motion for JNOV or New Trial
Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for JNOV or new trial because the great weight of the evidence showed that Jewell was visibly intoxicated when he bought alcohol at Empty Keg.
We review a trial court's decision on a motion for JNOV de novo. Attard v Citizens Ins Co of America, 237 Mich App 311, 321; 602 NW2d 633 (1999). "The grant or denial of a motion for new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless a clear abuse is shown. Bosak v Hutchinson, 422 Mich 712, 737; 375 NW2d 333 (1985). "An abuse of discretion will be found only where the trial court's denial of the motion was manifestly against the clear weight of the evidence." People v Daoust, 228 Mich App 1, 16; 577 NW2d 179 (1998). The question before this Court is not whether it would have decided the great-weight challenge as the trial court did, but whether the trial court's ruling on the motion was an abuse of discretion. Arrington v Detroit Osteopathic Hospital Corp (On Remand), 196 Mich App 544, 564; 493 NW2d 492 (1992).
While plaintiff points to evidence showing that Jewell was visibly intoxicated when he made at least the last of his three visits to Empty Keg, evidence also showed that Jewell was not visibly intoxicated. As defendant e
Page 1 2 3 4 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|