Syx v. Britton

2 Citing cases

  1. Lemley v. Wilson

    178 So. 3d 834 (Ala. 2015)   Cited 43 times
    In Lemley, a roadside worker was killed when he stepped into oncoming traffic without wearing a safety vest or warning signs.

    When the evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to Lemley and all reasonable inferences the jury was free to draw are indulged, it is easily perceivable from the record that the jury verdict in favor of Lemley as to the negligence and wantonness claims was supported by the evidence. See Syx v. Britton, 894 So.2d 715, 720–21 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) (“We cannot say that it is ‘easily perceivable’ from the record that the jury verdict in favor of Syx and S.P. Richards Company was unsupported by the evidence.... There was conflicting evidence as to whether Syx's negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries for which Britton sought recovery at trial.”); Richardson v. Joines, 574 So.2d at 788 (“While the plaintiffs presented contrary evidence sufficient to support a verdict in their favor, we cannot agree with their argument that the court properly granted their motion for a new trial.

  2. Blakley v. Johnson

    80 So. 3d 250 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010)   Cited 3 times

    Because reasonable inferences drawn from the disputed evidence support the jury's verdict in favor of Johnson and M & M Trucking, the trial court did not err in denying the Blakleys' motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence. See, e.g., Syx v. Britton, 894 So.2d 715 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) (evidence was sufficient to support jury's verdict for defendant in negligence action arising from automobile accident, and trial court erred in granting new trial on the ground that the jury's verdict was against great weight of evidence). The Blakleys also argue that the trial court's evidentiary rulings rose to the level of reversible error, justifying a new trial.