Court Denies Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial, Finding the Evidence Supported the Jury’s Verdict

After a jury returns a verdict in a Maryland car accident case, the losing party has the opportunity to file a number of post-trial motions. The most common post-trial motion is a motion for a new trial based on some perceived error that occurred during the proceeding. Generally speaking, a judge will not disturb a jury’s verdict absent extraordinary circumstances, but there are occasions on which a judge can override a jury’s findings and order a new trial.

A recent case illustrates a plaintiff’s unsuccessful attempt to obtain a new trial. The plaintiff was unsuccessful because the evidence at trial, which was contradictory, supported a finding in either party’s favor. That being the case, the court found that the jury was reasonable when it came to its ultimate conclusion.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was involved in a car accident with the defendant. Believing the defendant to be at fault, the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, seeking compensation for the injuries she sustained in the accident.

The evidence at trial consisted of both the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s testimony. The plaintiff testified that the defendant drifted out of her lane without signaling and crashed into the plaintiff. The defendant admitted to traveling 30 miles per hour in a zone where the speed limit was 25 miles per hour. The defendant also testified that she was traveling through a green light when the plaintiff pulled out in front of her without signaling, leaving the defendant no time to avoid the collision.

After the conclusion of the evidence, the jury returned a verdict in the defendant’s favor. The plaintiff moved for a new trial, arguing that the defendant’s admission to traveling five miles per hour in excess of the speed limit was an admission of negligence, so the jury should have found the defendant was negligent. The court disagreed and denied the plaintiff’s motion without fully discussing the facts. The plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. The court explained that when the evidence is conflicting on a certain issue, the jury is free to resolve that issue in any way that is supported by the evidence. The court also held that the lower court did not err when it did not include a recitation of both sides’ arguments in its opinion denying the plaintiff’s motion. The court explained that the lower court included enough information in the opinion to indicate the legal standard that was being applied.

Have You Been Injured in a Maryland Car Accident?

If you or a loved one has recently been injured in a Maryland car accident, you may be entitled to monetary compensation. The dedicated Maryland personal injury attorneys at the law firm of Lebowitz & Mzhen Personal Injury Lawyers have extensive experience representing victims in a wide range of Maryland personal injury and wrongful death cases. To learn more, and to schedule a free consultation with an attorney to discuss your case, call 410-654-3600 today.

More Blog Posts:

Court Affirms Defense Verdict in Car Accident Case, Despite Defendant’s Admission, Maryland Car Accident Attorney Blog, published March 2, 2018.

Maryland Court Discusses Admissibility of Medical Records in Recent Car Accident Case, Maryland Car Accident Attorney Blog, published February 16, 2018.

Contact Information