 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall v. Hall3/22/2005
s of these terms. Reasonable jurors could have concluded that respondent was not operating the ATV or that the ATV was designed for passengers. See Peterson, 263 N.W.2d at 637 (holding that whether the defendant was negligent per se for violating a statute was properly submitted to the jury when the meaning of the word "permit," as used in the statute, was susceptible to several meanings). Because the record contains competent evidence that reasonably tends to sustain the verdict, the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion for JNOV.
II.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a new trial because (1) irregularities and errors of law justify a new trial on liability, and (2) an insufficient award of damages justifies a new trial on damages.
The decision to grant or deny a new trial lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Halla Nursery, Inc. v. Baumann-Furrie & Co., 454 N.W.2d 905, 910 (Minn. 1990). On appeal from a denial of a motion for a new trial, this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and will affirm unless the verdict is manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence. ZumBerge v. N. States Power Co., 481 N.W.2d 103, 110 (Minn. App. 1992), review denied (Minn. Apr. 29, 1992).
Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion for a new trial " or the same reasons that a Directed Verdict should have been granted on negligence and that a JNOV is needed now." We reject appellant's argument because the trial court did not err in allowing the jury to decide whether appellant was negligent per se. Additionally, appellant argues the jury's award of zero compensatory damages constitutes insufficient damages because the record establishes that Dustin's life had monetary value. Appellant's argument fails because the jury properly found that appellant was not negligent, thus the jury's failure to award damages does not render the verdict null and void. See Wefel v. Norman, 296 Minn. 506, 508, 207 N.W.2d 340, 341 (1973) (holding that where a jury's determination that the defendant is not liable is supported by credible evidence, the denial of damages or granting of inadequate damages to the plaintiff does not necessarily show prejudice or render the verdict perverse such that a new trial is warranted).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's motion for a new trial.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|