Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the post-trial stage of civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident case and its proceedings.)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
COURT’S AUTHORITY TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL
A new trial is an examination of the issues of fact in the same court after trial and decision by the jury, court or referee. (Code of Civil Procedure section 656.)
A motion for new trial is proper only to secure examination of the issues of fact. (Rinaldo v. Superior Court. (1936) 15 Cal.2d 585.)
The test of propriety from the order granting a new trial is not whether there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict, but whether a contrary verdict would have been supported by substantial evidence. (Biggins v. Hanson. (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 16.)
A motion for new trial may be entertained where issues of law or issues of law and fact, are determined as well as where issues of fact are decided. (Carney v. Simmonds. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 84.) For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
The trial judge is accorded wide discretion and ruling on motions for new trial and exercise of this discretion is given great difference on appeal. (Sherman v. Kinetic Concepts. Inc., (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1152.)
RELIEF AVAILABLE
The verdict may be vacated and other decisions may be modified or vacated, in whole or in part and a new and further trial granted if all or part of the issues on the application of the party aggrieved for any of the following causes materially affecting the substantial rights of such party: (1) Irregularities in the proceeding of the court, jury or adverse party, or any order of the court or abuse of discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair trial; (2) Inadequate damages;
(3) Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision, or the verdict or other decision as against law; (4) Error of law occurring at trial and accepted by the party making the application; (5) A new trial may be granted where substantial rights of the party were materially affected by misconduct or irregularities in the proceeding by the jury. Glape v. Hawes Firearms Co., (1992) 226 Cal.App.3d 314.)
A new trial motion is addressed to the judge’s sound discretion, and the judge is vested with the authority to disbelieve witnesses, re-weigh the evidence, and draw reasonable inferences therefrom contrary to those of the trier of fact. (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359.)
The trial judge is accorded wide discretion and ruling on motions for new trial and exercise of this discretion is given great difference on appeal. (Sherman v. Kinetic Concepts. Inc., (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1152.)
Misconduct of counsel as grounds for new trial presents a matter primarily committed to the trial court; the judge who presided over the trial, who hears the testimony and arguments, and whose experience gives him a fine sense of a general atmosphere of proceedings is in a far better position than the appellate judges to evaluate the effect of the disputed arguments.(Garcia v. Rehrig Internat. Inc., (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 869.)
If properly before it, the court has the power to grant the new trial limited to damage issues.(Shapiro v. Prudential Property & Casualty Co., (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 722.)
A new trial may be based on any order of the court or abuse of discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair trial. (Code of Civil Procedure section 657(1).)
Evidentiary rulings by which evidence was erroneously admitted may be grounds for a new trial if prejudicial to the moving party’s right to a fair trial. (Townsend v. Gonzalez. (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 241.)
In jury trials, each party in fact has two hearings, one before the jury, and the other before the court as a thirteenth juror. (Norden v. Hartman. (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 751.) (See Part 3 of 9.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.