Opinion
C.A. No. 98C-09-019.
Submitted: June 20, 2000.
Decided: June 28, 2000.
Upon Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial-Denied .
Dear Counsel:
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for New Trial. This case resulted from a low impact rear-end collision that caused alleged injuries to the Plaintiff. The main question that needed to be determined at trial was to what extent were Plaintiffs preexisting complaints of pain exacerbated by this accident. After a jury trial, a verdict was rendered in favor of the Defendant. The jury found that the Defendant's admitted negligence was not the proximate cause of the Plaintiffs injuries. Plaintiff is now asking this Court to disregard the jury's verdict and grant her a new trial because the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence. Defendant's key argument is that the Court should be deferential to the jury's verdict because there was substantial evidence to support such a finding.
"The Superior Court has ample power to grant a new trial to prevent injustice." "Thus, on weight of the evidence motions . . . a trial judge is only permitted to set aside a jury verdict when in his judgment it is at least against the great weight of the evidence. In other words, barring exceptional circumstances, a trial judge should not set aside a jury verdict on such ground unless, on a review of all the evidence, the evidence preponderates so heavily against the jury verdict that a reasonable jury could not have reached the result." "On a motion to grant a new trial the verdict must be manifestly and palpably against the weight of the evidence or for some reason, or combination of reasons, justice would miscarry if it were allowed to stand."
McCloskey v. MeKelvey, Del. Super., 174 A.2d 691, 693 (1961).
Storey v. Camper, Del. Supr., 401 A.2d 458, 465 (1979).
McCloskey at 693.
At trial, the jury had before it the admission of Defendant that she crept up three feet and tapped the back of Plaintiffs car allegedly causing her injuries. However, the jury also had before it testimony that Plaintiff had long been suffering from neck pain, that she had preexisting arthritis in her neck and that Plaintiff did not return to any physician after the day of the accident for four and one half months. The jury decided from this conflicting testimony that the Plaintiffs preexisting conditions were the cause of her current pain and that the accident did not exacerbate these conditions in any manner. Since there was conflicting testimony on this issue and the jury chose to adopt one stance over the other, I find that the jury's verdict does not shock the conscience of the Court and I will not disturb the findings of the jury.
IT IS SO ORDERED.