 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ricks v. Jefferson Parish Hospital Service District #211/26/2002
idence opposed to the motion which is of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motion should be denied. Anderson v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 583 So.2d 829, 832 (La. 1991).
Refusal to render a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) can only be overturned if it is manifestly erroneous. Delaney v. Whitney National Bank, 96-2144, 97-0254 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/12/97), 703 So.2d 709, writ denied, 98-0123 (La. 3/20/98), 715 So.2d 1211. Furthermore, a jury's finding of fact may not be reversed absent manifest error or unless clearly wrong. Stobart v. State of Louisiana, Through Department of Transportation and Development, 92-1328 (La. 4/12/93), 617 So.2d 880. The reviewing court must do more than just simply review the record for some evidence which supports or controverts the trial court's findings; it must instead review the record in its entirety to determine whether the trial court's finding was clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. Stobart, 617 So.2d at 882.
The issue to be resolved by a reviewing court is not whether the trier of fact was right or wrong, but whether the factfinder's conclusion was a reasonable one. Stobart, supra. The reviewing court must always keep in mind that "if the trial court or jury's findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may not reverse, even if convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently." Stobart at 882-83. (Citations omitted).
In this case, we have already concluded that the jury's finding was not clearly wrong. Although we understand that the plaintiffs suffered a great loss, we cannot say, viewing the record in its entirety, that the jury's conclusion was unreasonable. Therefore, we cannot say that the trial court's refusal to grant the plaintiff's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was manifestly erroneous.
Finally, granting or denying a motion for new trial rests within the wide discretion of the trial court and its determination shall not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. Lambert v. State Through Dept. of Transp. & Development, 96-160 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/16/96), 683 So.2d 839, 845. We find no abuse in the trial court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for new trial. Accordingly, we find that plaintiffs' second assignment of error also lacks merit.
In conclusion, we affirm the jury verdict and the trial court's denials of the Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and, alternatively, Motion for New Trial. Costs for this appeal are to be paid by the plaintiffs.
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|