Opinion
No. 01-4018-SAC
July 7, 2003
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case comes before the court on plaintiff's motion for a new trial. (Dk. 117). Defendant has responded to the motion. (Dk. 118).
On June 17, 2003, plaintiff's one-page motion was filed without any supporting memorandum of law. The rules of this court require that all motions in civil cases be accompanied by a brief or memorandum. D.Kan Rule 7.1(a). Approximately eight days after plaintiff's motion was filed, and after defendant had filed its response brief, plaintiff filed a brief purporting to be its initial memorandum of law in support of its motion and its reply to defendant's response brief. The court does not condone this unorthodox practice, would likely be justified in denying plaintiff's motion for violation of the court's local rules, and will permit no further briefing of this motion.
Standards for Motion for New Trial
A trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a motion for a new trial. McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556 (1984); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a). In considering the motion, the court should "exercise judgment in preference to the automatic reversal for `error' and ignore errors that do not affect the essential fairness of the trial." McDonough Power Equipment, 464 U.S. at 553.
The motion may be granted where the court believes the verdict is against the weight of the evidence or prejudicial error has occurred. Anderson v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 861 F.2d 631, 637 (10th Cir. 1988). It is the burden of the moving party to demonstrate that the trial errors are prejudicial errors or that the verdict is not based on substantial evidence. White v. Conoco, Inc., 710 F.2d 1442, 1443 (10th Cir. 1983).
When the issue concerns the verdict being against the weight of the evidence, the trial court in the exercise of its discretion reviews the evidence. Black v. Hieb's Enterprises, Inc., 805 F.2d 360, 363 (10th Cir. 1986). The record is viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. Patton v. TIC United Corp., 77 F.3d 1235, 1242 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1005 (1996). The motion is not to be granted unless the verdict is clearly, decidedly, or overwhelmingly against the weight of the evidence. Id.; Continental Cas. Co. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 860 F.2d 970, 972 (10th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1079 (1989). "A new trial is not warranted simply because the court would have reached a different verdict." Boyce v. Board of Com'rs of Dickinson County, 857 F. Supp. 794, 797 (D.Kan. 1994) (citations omitted).
Because of the sanctity attached to jury verdicts, courts do not lightly overturn them. Midwest Underground Storage, Inc. v. Porter, 717 F.2d 493, 502 (10th Cir. 1983). Thus, motions for new trial are "`not regarded with favor and should only be granted with great caution.'" Maberry v. Said, 927 F. Supp. 1456, 1459 (D.Kan. 1996) (quoting United States v. Kelley, 929 F.2d 582, 586 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 926 (1991)).
In determining whether a new trial is appropriate, the trial court does not sit merely as an additional juror. VDA de Perez v. Hospital del Maestro, 910 F.2d 1004, 1006 (1st Cir. 1990). The trial court must "`feel that the jury quite clearly reached a seriously erroneous result in spite of the clear weight of the evidence.'" Leichihman v. Pickwick Intern., 814 F.2d 1263, 1267 (8th Cir.) (quoting Leichihman v. Pickwick International, Inc., 589 F. Supp. 831, 834 (D.Minn. 1984)), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 855 (1987).
Weight of the Evidence
Plaintiff first contends that the jury's verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence. The court disagrees. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim was submitted to the jury only because the jury may have chosen to believe plaintiff's testimony that he had fallen in the kitchen, had told the jailer of his fall and his pain soon thereafter and had repeatedly requested medical treatment for five or six weeks before he received it. The weight of the evidence, however, clearly favored the defendant, who not only created grave doubts about the plaintiff's credibility, but also presented clear and convincing evidence that it was responsive, rather than deliberately indifferent, to plaintiff's medical needs.
The same is true for plaintiff's claim of negligence. It is well established that defendant had a duty to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in keeping its premises safe, and in providing for the medical needs of those in its custody. Plaintiff's testimony alone could be viewed as having established a breach of either duty. The weight of the evidence, however, clearly favored the defendant, who not only showed that it took reasonable measures to prevent and remedy the conditions which allegedly caused plaintiff's fall, but also showed that it exercised reasonable care in providing for plaintiff's medical needs.
No accountability for actions
Plaintiff's only other contention is that by failing to allocate any percentage of fault to either party on the negligence claim, the jury failed to account for any of the parties' actions regarding this case.
The jury instructions on the negligence claim, which are commonly used in Kansas and which were not objected to by either party in this case, define both "negligence" and "fault." See Instruction 29. They state, in pertinent part, that "a party is at fault when he or she is negligent and that negligence caused or contributed to the event which brought about the injury or damages for which claim is made." The jury was then instructed to determine if any party is at fault. See Instruction 30.
The verdict form reflects the jury's negative answer to the question: "Do you find in favor of plaintiff on his negligence claim?" The verdict form instructed the jury to attribute a percentage of fault to each of the parties, only if it found in favor of plaintiff on his negligence claim. The jury's responses were internally consistent and resoundingly in favor of the defendant.
Plaintiff appears to contend that because he testified that he fell in the kitchen, some degree of negligence must be attributed to some party. But the court can envison multiple avenues by which the jury could properly have reached the conclusion it did, based upon the evidence in the case. For example, the jury would have been justified in: 1) discrediting plaintiff's testimony that he fell in the kitchen; 2) finding that although plaintiff fell in the kitchen, his act of falling was not due to the negligence of the defendant; 3) finding that although plaintiff fell in the kitchen due to the negligence of the defendant, plaintiff's injuries were not causally connected to defendant's negligence because of plaintiff's pre-existing injuries.
Given the cursory nature of plaintiff's motion, the court will not set forth herein the abundant testimony in support of its conclusions, but will state that the evidence in support of the plaintiff was so lacking that in the event the jury had returned a verdict in favor of defendant on either claim, the court would have given serious consideration to granting defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for new trial (Dk. 117) is denied.