 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Santoli v. Marbuery5/14/1998
ant of the new trial.
A trial court must articulate its reasons for granting a motion for new trial in order to allow for proper review. Antal v. Olde Worlde Products, Inc. (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 144, syllabus. In Antal, the trial court granted a motion for new trial because the verdict was not sustained by the weight of the evidence but did not specify any reasons for the decision. The decision was reversed as the trial court did not offer any explanation for its decision.
In the instant case, the opposite occurred. The trial court did articulate its reasoning for granting a new trial and mentioned both weight and inadequacy of damages but did not specify if the motion was granted pursuant to Civ.R. 59(A)(4), Civ.R. 59(A)(6) or both. Although the better practice would be to state upon which provision or provisions of Civ.R. 59 the decision is premised, the trial court's decision set forth the reasoning behind its decision which permitted proper review by this court.
Appellant's third assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment reversed.
This cause is reversed.
It is, therefore, considered that said appellant recover of said appellee her costs herein.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Exceptions.
JAMES M. PORTER, P.J. and JOHN T. PATTON, J., CONCUR.
LEO M. SPELLACY JUDGE
|