Opinion
C.A. No. 98C-05-205-JRJ.
Date Submitted: April 11, 2003.
Date Decided: April 22, 2003.
Upon Plaintiffs' Motion for a New Trial — DENIED
John M. Bader, Esquire, Thomas S. Neuberger, P.A.
Antonia S. Bevis, Esquire, Ferrara, Haley, Bevis Solomon
Dear Counsel:
I have reviewed Plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial and Defendant's opposition thereto. Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED. The Court has reviewed the evidence submitted during the trial and does not find that the verdict was "at least against the great weight of the evidence. Nor does the Court find that "the evidence preponderates so heavily against the jury verdict that a reasonable jury could not have reached [the] result" that this jury did. The jury found no liability. There were ample facts in the record to support this finding. James Green, the driver of the vehicle in which the plaintiff was riding at the time of the collision, testified that he never saw the defendant's vehicle until the collision. Green's explanation as to why he did not see the defendant until impact was that, when he drives, he looks straight ahead, does not look around him and it was dark. The defendant testified that he stopped in the median at the yield sign, checked both ways, and proceeded to pull onto the roadway when his vehicle stalled. The collision followed. A reasonable jury could have determined that, but for the unforseen event of stalling, the defendant would have had time to safely enter the roadway. In other words, the jury could have reasonably found that, but for the stalling episode, the collision would not have occurred. Because there was no evidence to suggest that the defendant knew or should have known his vehicle would stall in this fashion, it is reasonable that the jury concluded that the defendant was not negligent. This is particularly so in light of Green's testimony that he did not see the defendant's vehicle until impact. For these reasons, the Motion for New Trial is DENIED.
Storey v. Camper, 401 A.2d 458, 465 (Del. 1979). "The granting of a new trial is a remedial device designed to prevent injustice. A court's power to grant a new trial must be wielded cautiously, with great deference to the findings of the jury." Nixon v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2001 WL 1012174, at *2 (Del.Super.) (Citations omitted).
Storey, 401 A.2d at 465.