Opinion
C.A. No. 03C-12-166 SCD.
June 17, 2005.
Bernard A. van Ogtrop, Esquire, Seitz van Ogtrop Green, P.A., 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500 P.O. Box 68, Wilmington, DE 19899
Colin M. Shalk, Esquire, Casarino Christman Shalk, P.A. 800 N. King St., Suite 200, P.O. Box 1276, Wilmington, DE 19899.
Dear Counsel:
The Plaintiff has filed a motion for a new trial based on the weight of the evidence. He argues that the jury verdict should be set aside to prevent injustice. Plaintiff also asks for additur, but offers no authority for an award of additur when there has been a decision of no causation.
Superior Court Civil Rule 59.
This case involves an automobile accident. The first issue the jury was asked to answer by way of special interrogatory was whether or not the accident of July 9, 2002, caused injury. The jury answered "No."
There was a dispute between medical experts regarding the cause of Plaintiff's physical problems. The jury was instructed that it should weigh the testimony, and reconcile it if possible, and if not, to decide which testimony was the more credible. There was a basis in the evidence for the verdict that was returned by the jury. Great deference is accorded to the verdict of a jury. A new trial is only warranted if the jury's verdict is the result of passion, prejudice, partiality or corruption, or if the evidence preponderates so heavily against the jury verdict that a reasonable jury could not have reached the result.
Lang v. Morant, 867 A.2d 182, 185 (Del. 2005).
The motion for new trial or additur is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.