Opinion
CV-15-0092
03-29-2019
23 West Condominium Association, Plaintiff, v. D. F. Richard, Inc, Defendant.
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF: SAMUEL RUDMAN ESQ LAMBERT COFFIN VISITING ATTORNEY STEVEN SMITH ESQ. LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN L SMITH ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT MICHAEL JOHNSON ESQ JOSEPH MENDES ESQ BOYLE SHAUGHNESSY & CAMPO PC
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF: SAMUEL RUDMAN ESQ LAMBERT COFFIN VISITING ATTORNEY STEVEN SMITH ESQ. LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN L SMITH
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT MICHAEL JOHNSON ESQ JOSEPH MENDES ESQ BOYLE SHAUGHNESSY & CAMPO PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Wayne R. Douglas Justice, Superior Court
23 West Condominium Association brought this action against D.F. Richard, Inc. to recover damages to two units resulting from burst pipes. One unit was owned by Andrew Bartels; the other, by Sue and David Bartlett. The complaint alleged breach of contract and negligence. After trial, the jury rendered a verdict on December 7, 2018 in favor of defendant on both counts. Immediately following the verdict, plaintiffs counsel requested, and was granted, leave to file a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict within thirty days. On December 12, 2018, judgment for the defendant was entered on the docket. On January 17, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial under M.R. Civ. P. 59, which is now before the court, For the reasons set out below, the Rule 59 motion for new trial is denied.
Plaintiff ultimately did not file a Rule 50(b) motion. The court would not have been inclined to grant such a motion.
Plaintiffs motion for leave to file the motion for new trial is granted. Plaintiff also had previously filed a motion to permit interviews with jurors who had served on the jury in this matter. Defendant filed an opposition on the ground that allowing juror contact during the pendency of this matter could provide information pertinent to the Rule 59 motion, whether or not counsel had intended to solicit that information. The court is denying the motion to permit without prejudice at this time.
The party seeking a new trial after an adverse jury verdict must show it is "reasonably clear that prejudicial error has been committed or that substantial justice has not been done.'" Larochelle v. Cyr, 1998 ME 52, ¶ 8, 707 A.2d 799 (quoting Davis v. Currier, 1997 ME 199, ¶ 7, 704 A.2d 1207 (1997). The party challenging the jury verdict bears the burden to show clear error. Daigle & Son, Inc. v. Stone, 387 A.2d 1115, 1116 (Me. 1987). A verdict must be viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and must stand unless the there is no credible record evidence to support it. Binette v. Deane, 391 A.2d 811, 813 (Me. 1978).
Plaintiff seeks a new trial on the contract claim with respect to Andrew Bartels "because no rational jury could have concluded that a contract did not exist and that it was not breached." Pl. Rule 59 Motion for New Trial.
Viewed in the light most favorable to defendant, the evidence did not compel a finding that D.F. Richard breached its contract with Bartels. There was evidence that the agreement to provide automatic propane delivery was subject to any repair actions that had to be taken; that there was a leak in the Bartels tank; and that D.F. Richard was following its leak protocol by letting the tank run out. Where the existence and/or terms of an oral contract are in dispute, "it is for the trier of fact to ascertain and determine the nature and extent of the obligations and rights of the parties." Carter v. Beck, 366 A.2d 520, 522 (Me. 1976).
Plaintiff also contends that Question 1 on the Verdict Form "cannot be reconciled with the evidence and the law as instructed." Pl. Rule 59 Motion for New Trial, 1. That is not so; as just noted, there was credible record evidence from which the jury could have found that D.F. Richard did not breach its auto-delivery contract with Andrew Bartels. Moreover, plaintiff's argument concerning the read-back of one witness's testimony, and the jury's interpretation thereof, amounts to speculation. Further, it is the court's view that it did not err in sustaining the objection to plaintiffs use of the word, "contract;" but even if it did, that does not meet the standard for vacating the jury's verdict and ordering a new trial.
Therefore, it is hereby ordered and entry shall be: "Plaintiff's Rule 59 Motion for New Trial is DENIED."
The clerk may enter this Order Denying Motion for New Trial on the docket by reference pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).
SO ORDERED.