 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ramirez v. Little3/1/2005
ry of 2000. Based on our decision in Tucker, we conclude that the trial court acted appropriately in granting defendant's motion for a directed verdict.We overrule this assignment of error.
II. Plaintiffs' Motion for a New Trial
Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred by failing to grant their motion for a new trial. N.C. Gen. Stat. ยง 1A-1, Rule 59(a) (2003) provides various grounds for granting a new trial. However, the trial court has broad discretion in determining whether a motion for a new trial should be granted:
It has been long settled in our jurisdiction that an appellate court's review of a trial judge's discretionary ruling either granting or denying a motion to set aside a verdict and order a new trial is strictly limited to the determination of whether the record affirmatively demonstrates a manifest abuse of discretion by the judge.
Worthington v. Bynum, 305 N.C. 478, 482, 290 S.E.2d 599, 602 (1982). Our courts have "evinced a positive hesitancy to review such discretionary rulings by the trial court except in rare cases[.]" Id.
In the present case, plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to a new trial because the trial court erroneously granted defendant's motion for a directed verdict. However, we have already determined that the trial court acted appropriately with regard to this issue. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial. We dismiss this assignment of error.
After careful consideration of the record, briefs, and transcript, we conclude that the trial court acted appropriately in granting defendant's motion for a directed verdict and denying plaintiffs' motion for a new trial. The decision is therefore Affirmed.
Judges McGEE and ELMORE concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
|