 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Biddle v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.8/22/2000
injury. Second-hand testimony about injuries allegedly sustained by other employees would have added nothing to Appellant's case on that causation issue. The issue presented to the jury was not whether other employees had been injured on the job, or even whether Plaintiff had suffered a back injury because of his work for the Defendant, but rather whether or not Plaintiff's back injury was casually connected to Defendant's negligence. We find the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow such testimony.
Finally, Plaintiff raises the issue that the Trial Court erred "in not granting a directed verdict to Plaintiff at the close of the case." This Court summarized our standard of review of a trial court's decision on a motion for directed verdict in State Farm General Ins. Co. v. Wood, 1 S.W.3d 658 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999):
A directed verdict is appropriate only when the evidence is susceptible to but one conclusion. Eaton v. McLain, 891 S.W.2d 587, 590 (Tenn. 1994); Long v. Mattingly, 797 S.W.2d 889, 892 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990). We must "take the strongest legitimate view of the evidence favoring the opponent of the motion." Id. In addition, all reasonable inferences in favor of the opponent of the motion must be allowed, and all evidence contrary to the opponent's position must be disregarded. Eaton, 891 S.W.2d at 590; Long, 797 S.W.2d at 892. State Farm General Ins. Co. v. Wood, 1 S.W.3d 658, 663 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
Applying this standard and taking the strongest legitimate view of the evidence favoring Defendant, we hold that the evidence in this case is susceptible to more than one conclusion. Accordingly, the evidence was susceptible to a conclusion contrary to that proposed by the Plaintiff, and the Trial Court did not err in refusing to grant Plaintiff a directed verdict.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed and this cause is remanded to the Trial Court for such further proceedings as may be required, if any, consistent with this Opinion, and for collection of the costs below. The costs on appeal are assessed against the Appellant, Walter J. Biddle, Sr.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|