Opinion
No. 12–P–530.
2013-04-10
John D. MEOLA, Jr. v. Sameh S. SIDHOM.
By the Court (GREEN, HANLON & AGNES, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
John D. Meola, Jr., sued Sameh S. Sidhom for negligence, with Meola claiming that he incurred damages after his car was rear-ended by Sidhom's car. At the end of the four-day trial, the jury found that Sidhom was not negligent. After a hearing, the trial judge denied Meola's motion for a new trial. Judgment entered for Sidhom.
Meola appeals from the judgment and from the denial of his motion for a new trial, arguing that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and that the judge abused her discretion in denying his motion for a new trial.
Whether to grant a motion for a new trial “on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence rests in the discretion of the judge.” Moose v. Massachusetts Inst. of Technology, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 420, 426 (1997), quoting from Robertson v. Gaston Snow & Ely Bartlett, 404 Mass. 515, 520, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 894 (1989). That is especially so when, as here, the motion judge was also the trial judge. Gath v. M/A–Com, Inc., 440 Mass. 482, 492 (2003). There was sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict, and it was for the jury to determine the weight and credibility of any conflicting testimony. See Chase v. Roy, 363 Mass. 402, 406–407 (1973). In reaching their verdict, the jury could credit Sidhom's testimony that he was driving in traffic behind Meola, that Meola came to an abrupt stop without engaging his turn signal, that Sidhom saw Meola's brake lights seconds prior to impact, applied his brakes right away, but was unable to avoid the collision. Because the jury rationally could conclude that Sidhom was not negligent, the judge did not abuse her discretion in denying Meola's motion for a new trial, and we discern no basis for disturbing the judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
Order denying motion for new trial affirmed.