 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lamartiniere v. Jones12/6/2005
also testified that he had to seek a specialist because of the accident; however, he never had to stop playing the keyboards in his band, which he did standing up. Winkelmann testified that the only potential injury that Brouillette did sustain from the accident was a whiplash injury to the cervical spine. Brouillette testified that he incurred about $5000 in medical bills because of the accident. X-rays and a subsequent MRI also showed that Brouillette had a small disc protrusion in the L5-S1 region of his back.
. The case went to trial in Madison County Circuit Court on August 19, 2004, and Jones stipulated to negligently causing the accident. However, Jones's disputed that he caused any of Brouillette, Lamartiniere, or Rachal's injuries. The jury entered a verdict for Jones determining that none of the three incurred any damages. They now appeal arguing that the jury verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, although they failed to move for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
ANALYSIS
. Brouillette, Lamartiniere, and Rachal contend that since Jones conceded negligence and since conceded the existence of minimal injuries then a reasonable jury could not issue a verdict in Jones's favor because it would go against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. "In determining whether a jury verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, this Court must accept as true the evidence which supports the verdict and will reverse only when convinced that the circuit court has abused its discretion in failing to grant a new trial. Only when the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice will this Court disturb it on appeal." Wal-Mart Stores v. Frierson, 818 So.2d 1135, 1143 ( )(Miss. 2002).
. However, Jones also points out that, "Mississippi appellate practice requires that in a civil jury case, a post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is necessary for appellate review if the appellant wishes to contend that judgment should have been granted as a matter of law." Harrison v. McMillan, 828 So.2d 756, 762 ( )(Miss.2002). The appellants failed to challenge the sufficiency of the verdict at the trial level by filing a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict preventing the trial court from hearing this argument. In Harrison, the court procedurally barred the appellant from challenging the weight of the evidence since they failed to move for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Harrison, 828 So2.d at 763-764 ( -23) Similarly, Brouillette, Lamartiniere, and Rachal are procedurally barred from challenging the sufficiency of the weight of the evidence relied upon for this jury verdict.
. THE JUDGMENT OF CIRCUIT COURT OF MADISON COUNTY IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
KING, CJ., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR.
|