Opinion
C.A. No. 03C-04-038-CLS.
August 26, 2005.
Upon Consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial DENIED.
Ben T. Castle, Esquire, Young Conaway Stargatt Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the Plaintiff.
Michael F. Duggan, Esquire, Tara L. Lattomus, Esquire, Eckert Seamans Cherin Mellot, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for the Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendant The Chimes, Incorporated, ("Chimes") has filed a Motion for Remittitur, or in the alternative, a New Trial. Upon consideration of the evidence presented at trial, and a review of Defendant's Motion and Plaintiff's Response, this Court concludes Chimes' Motion should be DENIED.
Background
This case commenced on April 3, 2003, when Fletcher filed a Complaint against Walmart for injuries allegedly caused by a tire falling from a Walmart wall. On December 4, 2003, Walmart entered an offer of judgment in the amount of $5,000. The offer was rejected by Fletcher and the case proceeded to trial.The civil jury trial was held from February 28 — March 2, 2005. Fletcher's theory of recovery revolved around res ipsa loquitur, or "the thing speaks for itself." It was his contention that merchandise should not fall on shoppers if Walmart used the proper care. Fletcher argued that he reported the injury to store managers and immediately sought medical attention. Defendant Walmart countered that both examining doctors believed that the disk herniation in Fletcher's neck occurred two years after the accident. Accordingly, Fletcher may not have been injured in Walmart. The jury ultimately entered judgment for Walmart and no damages were awarded.
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1311 (7th ed. 1999).
Discussion
In a motion for a new trial, the court starts with the fundamental principle that the jury's verdict is presumed to be correct. The court must then determine whether the jury's verdict is against the great weight of evidence. Unless it is clearly shown to be the result of passion, prejudice, partiality or corruption, or that it was manifestly in disregard of the evidence or applicable rules of law, the jury's verdict should not be disturbed. If a case involves a controverted issue of fact in which "the evidence is conflicting but sufficient evidence may be gathered therefrom to support a verdict for either party, the issue of fact will be left to the jury."
Young v. Frase, 702 A.2d 1234, 1236 (Del.Supr. 1997).
Storey v. Camper, 401 A.2d 458, 465 (Del.Supr. 1979) (internal citation omitted).
Young, 702 A.2d at 1237 (internal citation omitted).
Storey, 401 A.2d at 463 (internal citation omitted).
Here, the Court finds that there was contradicted evidence presented as to the cause of Fletcher's disk herniation and that the jury verdict should not be disturbed. Although Fletcher visited the hospital two hours after the alleged incident, Walmart store manager, George Bailey testified that Fletcher did not exhibit any outward signs on injury. More significantly, both Fletcher's doctor, as well as the defense-doctor, testified that: 1) disk herniation can occur without trauma; and 2) Fletcher's herniation seemed to have occurred two years after the incident.
The Court instructed the jury both on negligence charges and res ipsa loquitur. Based on the doctors' and store staff's testimony, the jury was free to reject Fletcher's theory of res ipsa. Dr. Arrabal, Fletcher's regular physician, gave testimony that was most telling of Fletcher's injuries. He testified that between 2001-2003, Fletcher did not have any symptoms of disk herniation. The Court finds that the jury verdict was correct, and not a result of passion, prejudice or in disregard of applicable rules of law. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial is DENIED.