 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brookings v. Thompson5/7/1991
ggrieved for any of the following causes materially affecting the substantial rights of such party:
"(6) insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision or that it is against law;"
The decision to grant a new trial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be overturned absent a showing of manifest abuse of discretion. Stanhope v. Lawrence (1990), 241 Mont. 468, 471, 787 P.2d 1226, 1228. This Court's function is to determine if there is substantial credible evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict. Walls v. Rue (1988), 233 Mont. 236, 238, 759 P.2d 169, 171. We must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party below, and where the record presents conflicting evidence, resolved by the jury, this Court is precluded from disturbing the verdict. Id. This rule is particularly applicable when the District Court has passed on the sufficiency of the evidence on motion for new trial and has upheld its sufficiency. Id. When testimony at trial includes different accounts of an event, it would be an abuse of discretion for the trial court to grant a new trial solely because it chooses to believe testimony different than that believed by the jury. To do so would create a bench supremacy and sap the vitality of jury verdicts. Nelson v. Hartman (1982), 199 Mont. 295, 300, 648 P.2d 1176, 1178-1179.
The basis of Brookings' argument appears to be that this kind of accident cannot happen absent negligence. Brookings was hurt and somebody had to be at fault. Brookings produces no evidence to support this contention. Brookings cites Aemisegger v. Herman (1985), 215 Mont. 347, 697 P.2d 925, for the proposition that a defendant is negligent as a matter of law when he violates basic traffic rules, such as yielding the right-of-way or failing to take the conditions of the highway into consideration. Aemisegger does not stand for the proposition, as Brookings suggests, that because there is an accident, someone must be found negligent. The evidence in Aemisegger was clear that the defendant was at fault. In this case the evidence is conflicting and not at all clear that anyone was at fault.
We hold that the District Court did not err when it denied Brookings' motion for a new trial on the basis that the defendants were negligent as a matter of law. Affirmed.
CHIEF JUSTICE TURNAGE and JUSTICES GRAY and HUNT concur.
JUSTICE TRIEWEILER, dissenting:
I dissent from the opinion of the majority.
I agree that as a general rule the mere occurrence of an accident does not require a finding that negligence caused the accident. However, that general rule is not logically applicable to the facts in this case.
The plaintiff, Douglas Brookings, was an innocent passenger in a motor vehicle which went out of control, left the highway, and rolled over.
Donald Tigart, the driver of that motor vehicle, blamed his loss of control on Richard Thompson's unexpected entrance onto the highway from a side street or driveway, and Thompson's failure to yield the right-of-way to Tigart.
Thompson's defense was that Tigart was simply operating his vehicle too fast for the existing conditions, and therefore, was unable to control his vehicle when Thompson entered the highway, even though he should have been able to do so, based on their respective locations at the time.
No one alleges that the plaintiff contributed in any way to the cause of the accident. Neither did any witness or any party blame any person other than Tigart or Thompson for what occurred.
This accident could only have o
Page 1 2 3 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|