 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Teal v. Theofrastous9/3/2002
UNPUBLISHED
A decision without a published opinion is authority only in the case in which such decision is rendered and should not be cited in any other case in any court for any other purpose, nor should any court consider any such decision for any purpose except in the case in which such decision is rendered. See Rule of Appellate Procedure 30 (e)(3).
Plaintiffs (Leslie J. Teal and Brian K. Teal) appeal from the denial of their post-trial motion for a new trial or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. For the reasons that follow, their appeal is dismissed.
During July, 1996, plaintiff Leslie Teal received medical treatment leading to an injury to her colon. On 1 September 1998, plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice suit against defendants,seeking damages for negligence and loss of consortium. Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict on 30 May 2000, finding defendants not liable for negligence or damages. Plaintiffs have not appealed the jury's verdict, but on 23 June 2000, plaintiffs moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, pursuant to N.C.G.S. . 1A-1, Rule 50, and for a new trial pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 59. Their motion was denied on 16 October 2000. Plaintiffs appealed from the denial of their post-trial motion, and from the trial court's order of 11 October 2000, taxing costs to plaintiffs.
The sole argument presented by plaintiffs on appeal is that the trial court committed reversible error by admitting certain testimony of Dr. Domby, a defense witness. However, we conclude that plaintiffs' violations of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure have precluded meaningful appellate review, and require dismissal of plaintiffs' appeal.
First, the issue presented by plaintiffs _ admissibility of certain testimony _ has not been properly raised through plaintiffs' appeal of the denial of their motion under N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 50 for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). A motion for JNOV tests the sufficiency of the evidence and is "essentially a renewal of an earlier motion for directed verdict." Bryant v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 313 N.C. 362, 368-69, 329 S.E.2d 333, 337 (1985). In the instant case, we find nothing in the record to suggest that plaintiffs moved for a directed verdict. Moreover, on appeal plaintiffs do not present any argumentregarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the issue raised by a motion for directed verdict or JNOV; nor do they address the impact of the exclusion of the challenged testimony upon the sufficiency of the evidence. Thus, plaintiffs failed to show any connection between their motion for JNOV and the issue they attempt to present on appeal.
In addition to moving for JNOV, plaintiffs' motion also asked "in the alternative . . . pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 59, for a new trial[.]" However, plaintiffs' Rule 59 motion does not state the grounds for a new trial, or indicate in any fashion the basis for the motion, and thus fails to comply with N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 7(b)(1) (2001) (motions "shall be made in writing, shall state the grounds therefor"). The failure to state the basis for a Rule 59 motion renders it invalid. Clark v. Penland, 146 N.C. App. 288, 291, 552 S.E.2d 243, 245 (2001) (trial court did not err by denying Rule 59(e) motion where defendant "fail to state the grounds therefor . . . as required under Rule 7(b)"). In the case sub judice, we conclude that plaintiffs' Rule 59 motion fails because it does not include any indication of the grounds for the motion. We conclude that plaintiffs' post-trial motion, for JNOV or a new trial, did not preserve for appellate review the issue of Dr. Domby's testimony.
Another serious
Page 1 2 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|