 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Elliott v. Birth3/19/2002
to the Plaintiff's grandmother, who was with the child at the time and who testified in the action.
20. The Court finds that the jury acted in manifest disregard of the Court's instructions with regard to the right of the minor Plaintiff to recover in one lump sum all of his injuries, both present and future, which would include pain and suffering and medical expenses. It appears that the jury disregarded the instructions of the Court, or such an inadequate jury verdict would not have been returned.
The trial court's conclusions of law stated that (1) the jury acted in manifest disregard of the instructions of the Court, (2) the jury acted under the influence of prejudice against plaintiff's grandmother, because she "spoke in broken English," and (3) the verdict was contrary to the evidence and the law. Based upon its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court ordered the verdict set aside and the "matter set for retrial[.]" Defendant again appeals.
The trial court awarded plaintiff a new trial pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 59 (1999), which authorizes the court to grant a new trial upon, inter alia, the following grounds:
. . . 5. Manifest disregard by the jury of the instructions of the court; 6. Excessive or inadequate damages appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice; . . 7. Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or that the verdict is contrary to law[.] . . . N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 59(a)(5), (6) and (7).
The trial court's decision to set aside a jury's verdict and award a new trial is a discretionary ruling. Blow v. Shaughnessy, 88 N.C. App. 484, 364 S.E.2d 444, disc. review denied, 311 N.C. 151, 321 S.E.2d 127 (1988). In Worthington v. Bynum and Cogdell v. Bynum, 305 N.C. 478, 290 S.E.2d 599 (1982), the North Carolina Supreme Court held that:
an appellate court's review of a trial judge's discretionary ruling either granting or denying a motion to set aside a verdict and order a new trial is strictly limited to the determination of whether the record affirmatively demonstrates a manifest abuse of discretion by the judge. . . . n appellate court should not disturb a discretionary Rule 59 order unless it is reasonably convinced by the cold record that the trial judge's ruling probably amounted to a substantial miscarriage of justice.Id. at 482 and 487, 290 S.E.2d at 602 and 605. The Court in Worthington explicitly declined "to formulate a precise test" for abuse of discretion, noting instead that "it has been a sufficiently workable standard of review to say merely that a manifest abuse of discretion must be made to appear from the record as a whole with the party alleging the existence of an abuse bearing that heavy burden of proof." Id. at 484-485, 290 S.E.2d at 604. However, certain principles have generally played a significant role in appellate review of a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial. First, it is the province of the jury to weigh the evidence and find the facts. Albrecht v. Dorsett, 131 N.C. App. 502, 508 S.E.2d 319 (1998).
Where the evidence is conflicting, it is the jury's role to resolve the conflicts and discrepancies. Id. In Albrecht, plaintiffs moved for a new trial on the basis that the jury had awarded damages in an amount lower than the medical expenses introduced into evidence. This Court found that the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion under Rule 59 for a new trial, stating that:
. . . as the finder of fact, the jury is 'entitled to draw its own conclusions about the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to accord the evidence.' The jury's function as
Page 1 2 3 4 5 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|