(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury/car accident case and its proceedings.)
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE VERDICT [C.C.P. SECTION 657 SUBD. 6.] AND AS A RESULT DAMAGES WERE NOT AWARDED [C.C.P. SECTION 657 SUBD. 5.]
Code of Civil Procedure Section 657 subd. (6) permits the vacating of a verdict and ordering of a new trial if the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict. The Fourth District Court of Appeal has held that, in determining whether a new trial may be granted on this ground, the trial court must independently weigh the evidence and assess its sufficiency to support the verdict; a new trial may be granted even if the evidence would be considered sufficient to sustain the verdict reached by the jury on appeal. People v. Capps (1984), 159 Cal.App.3d 546, 552; Candido v. Huitt (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 918, 923.
In weighing and evaluating the evidence, the court is a trier-of-fact and is not bound by factual resolutions made by the jury in this car collision case. The court may grant a new trial even though there be sufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict on appeal, so long as the court determines the weight of the evidence is against the verdict. (Candido v. Hunt, supra, 151 Cal.App.3d at p. 924.)
In contrast with a JNOV, a motion for a new trial has a different purpose. The Supreme Court noted in the famous case of Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 458-459, the function of a new trial motion is to allow a reexamination of an issue of fact. (See Part 3 of 12.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.