 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Haggerty v. Foster12/5/2002
Id. (citing Sperry-New Holland v. Prestage, 617 So. 2d 248, 252 (Miss. 1993)); Steele v. Inn of Vicksburg, Inc., 697 So. 2d 373, 376 (Miss. 1997); Misso v. Oliver, 666 So. 2d 1366, 1375-76 (Miss. 1996); Am. Fire Protection, Inc. v. Lewis, 653 So. 2d 1387, 1390-91 (Miss. 1995). When conflicting testimony exists, the jury determines the weight and worth of the witnesses' testimony and credibility at trial. Wallace v. Thornton, 672 So. 2d 724, 727 (Miss. 1996). Reversal of a jury verdict is not warranted unless it is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and credible testimony. Id.
. The standard for granting a new trial is as follows: "On a motion for a new trial, the trial judge should set aside a jury's verdict when, in the exercise of his sound discretion, he is convinced that the verdict is contrary to the substantial weight of the evidence." McKinzie v. Coon, 656 So. 2d 134, 138 (Miss. 1995) (citing Wells Fargo Armored Serv. Corp. v. Turner, 543 So. 2d 154, 158 (Miss. 1989)). When determining whether a trial court erred in refusing a new trial, this Court reviews for abuse of discretion. Am. Fire Protection, Inc., 653 So. 2d at 1390.
. The circuit judge did not abuse his discretion in denying a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Foster, it cannot be said that the facts point so overwhelmingly in favor of Haggerty that reasonable men could not have arrived at a contrary verdict. Foster presented evidence supporting his theory that the accident was unavoidable. He submitted photographs of the damage to both vehicles and articulated a plausible theory of why the damage to both resulted as it did. This theory supported his version of how the accident occurred: Haggerty entered the turn lane after Foster began crossing it.
. Though Haggerty also presented a theory of how the accident occurred, both theories were reasonable and the jury was entitled to decide which to credit. Wolfson testified that both he and Foster looked to make sure that no vehicles were coming and that Foster was driving carefully. Both Foster and Wolfson testified that the lane was clear. Though it might be argued that Wolfson is Foster's employee and therefore biased, this argument goes to the weight of his testimony and was obviously resolved by the jury in favor of believing him. Haggerty testified that she hit Foster's vehicle without having time to apply her brakes. She also testified that she did not see Foster until she hit him. Though she testified that she hit Foster head-on, the photographs introduced at trial indicate the collision may have occurred in a manner consistent with Foster's version.
. In short, given the deference that is afforded a jury's verdict when, as here, the evidence presented at trial conflicts and is capable of more than one interpretation, it cannot be said that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial.
. This assignment is without merit.
CONCLUSION
. We find no merit to the errors that Haggerty assigns. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.
. AFFIRMED.
PITTMAN, C.J., SMITH, P.J., WALLER, COBB, EASLEY, CARLSON AND GRAVES, JJ., CONCUR. McRAE, P.J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|