Opinion
C.A. No. 00C-07-044 HDR.
Submitted: April 8, 2002.
Decided: April 24, 2002.
Upon Plaintiff's Motion For A New Trial — DENIED
Wayne N. Elliott, Esq., Prickett, Jones Elliott, Dover, DE.
Jeffrey A. Young, Esq., Young Young, Dover, DE.
Counsel:
This is a personal injury action arising from a collision which occurred on May 19, 1999. The defendant admitted her negligence but contested all injury claims of the plaintiff. After considering the evidence, the jury awarded zero dollars in damages. Plaintiff has moved for a new trial contending that the award of zero dollars is inadequate and unacceptable as a matter of law citing Maier v. Santucci.
697 A.2d 747, 749 (Del. 1997).
Defense counsel replies that the jury determined that the plaintiff was not credible given inconsistent statements to medical personnel regarding the nature of the accident, the time of the onset of complaints, and his admission of false answers to interrogatories. And while the only doctor to testify was plaintiff's treating physician, his opinions were based upon the subjective complaints of the plaintiff.
A jury verdict is presumed to be correct and just. The Court has the authority to grant a new trial if the verdict is out of proportion to the injury so as to Renda v. Anderson 00C-07-044 HDR April 24, 2002 Page 2 shock the Court's conscience and sense of justice, or if the verdict is based upon passion, partiality, prejudice, mistake or misapprehension on the part of the jury.
Mills v. Telenczak, 345 A.2d 424 (Del. 1975).
Storey v. Castner, 314 A.2d 187 (Del. 1973); McCloskey v. McKelvey, 174 A.2d 691 (Del.Super. 1961).
In this case the credibility of the plaintiff was clearly at issue. Based upon the testimony presented, a reasonable jury could have found that there was either no injury or that any injury to plaintiff was not caused by the defendant.
Kossol v. Duffy, Del. Supr., 2000 WL 1780799, Berger, J. (Nov. 29, 2000); DeMarie v. Copio, Del. Super., C.A. No. 98C-06-028, Witham, J. (ORDER) (Aug. 28, 2001); Hayes v. Bartole, Del. Super., C.A. No. 99C-03-0299, Slights, J. (ORDER) (Feb. 27, 2001); Wood v. Riehl, Del. Super., C.A. No. 99C-05-021, Ridgely, P.J. (ORDER) (Jan. 30, 2001).
Because the plaintiff has not shown a basis for a new trial, the motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.