Opinion
C.A. No. 08C-10-103 FSS.
Submitted: July 15, 2010.
Decided: July 19, 2010.
Upon Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial — DENIED
Stephen P. Casarino, Esquire, Casarino Christman Shalk Ransom Doss, P.A., Wilmington, DE.
Michael D. Bednash, Esquire, Kimmel Carter Roman Peltz, Newark, DE.
Dear Counsel:
Plaintiff presented ample evidence that her collision with Defendant was his fault. That includes Defendant's agreeing that his father would pay a voluntary assessment on his behalf. Defendant, however, explained how his car unavoidably slid into Plaintiff's, and why he went along with his father's paying the ticket. While the jury could have easily sided with Plaintiff, Defendant's testimony provided evidence from which the jury could, and did, find in his favor.
As you know, when it comes to a motion for new trial, the court must view the evidence in a reasonable light most favorable to the verdict. Here, Defendant's testimony was enough. Moreover, as Defendant observes in his response to the motion, nothing happened during the trial that supports a finding that the verdict was based on passion, prejudice, or mistake on the jury's part.
In summary, this was a relatively simple trial. Basically, both drivers told their side to the jury, and each was cross-examined. The verdict on liability reflects the jury's collective, reasonable assessment of the testimony.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.