Opinion
No. 247, 2001
Submitted: January 8, 2002
Decided: January 24, 2002
Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 99C-02-181
AFFIRMED
Unpublished Opinion is below.
LARAYE WRIGHT, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. CHAD ROLAND MECK and WILLIAM DIPIETRAPAUL, d/b/a FIRST STATE LAWN SERVICE, Defendants Below, Appellees. No. 247, 2001 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: January 8, 2002 Decided: January 24, 2002
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
Randy J. Holland Justice
ORDER
This 24th day of January 2002, it appears to the Court that:
1) This is an appeal following a jury trial in the Superior Court.
The origin of the litigation was an automobile accident. Liability was admitted by the defendant-appellees, Chad Roland Meck and William Dipietrapaul, d/b/a/ First State Lawn Service. The only issue for the jury to decide was the nature and extent of injuries, if any, suffered by the plaintiff-appellant, Laraye Wright. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants.
2) The appellant filed a Motion for a New Trial pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 50. On April 25, 2001, the Superior Court entered a letter opinion denying the appellant's motion. Following the entry of final judgment, the appellant filed an appeal to this Court.
3) The appellant has raised two issues on appeal. First, she submits that "the verdict by the jury, that [she] was not injured as a result of [the] motor vehicle accident of February 24, 1998, was manifestly and palpably against the weight of the [trial] evidence to such a degree that justice would miscarry if it was allowed to stand." According to the appellant, the Superior Court abused its discretion by denying the Motion for a New Trial, since "the evidence preponderated heavily against the jury verdict." Second, the appellant argues "the jury improperly heard testimony and considered [defense] counsel's argument that the rear-end collision of [plaintiff's] motor vehicle was minor, without considering expert testimony as to the issue regarding the correlation between the extent of the damage to the automobiles in an accident and the extent of an occupant's personal injuries caused by the accident."
4) This Court has determined that the Superior Court's decision to deny the appellant's Motion for a New Trial should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its well-reasoned letter opinion dated April 25, 2001.
5) The appellant's second argument is that it was improper for the jury to hear evidence and then argument from defense counsel that the collision was minor, without expert testimony as to the correlation between the extent of the damage to the automobiles in an accident and the extent of an occupant's personal injuries caused by the accident. There was no objection by the appellant's counsel at trial, however, to either the evidence or the argument. Therefore, this second issue will not be addressed on appeal unless the appellant demonstrates plain error. The appellant points out that this case was tried prior to this Court's decision in Davis v. Maute. Nevertheless, there was no objection at trial, and this Court has concluded that the interests of justice do not require an application of the plain error standard of review.
SUPR.CT.R. 8.
Davis v. Maute, 770 A.2d 36 (Del. 2001).
SUPR.CT.R. 8.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.