Case Title: Russell v. Colson

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1996-09-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
John Henry RUSSELL, Debbar Russell,
Individually and as Administratrix of the
Estate of Cleophus Russell, Deceased v.
Thomas COLSON

95-1147                                            ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
              Opinion delivered September 30, 1996


1.   Motions -- motion for judgment NOV or new trial granted only
     rarely -- appellant bore burden of proof. -- The granting of
     a motion for judgment NOV or new trial will not be affirmed
     except in rare circumstances; no matter how strong the
     evidence of the party having the burden of proof in a
     negligence case, that party is not entitled to have those
     facts declared to have reality of law unless there is utterly
     no rational basis in the situation testimonially,
     circumstantially, or inferentially for a jury to believe
     otherwise; appellants bore the burden of proof in this
     negligence case. 

2.   Witnesses -- jury determines both credibility of as well as
     weight and value of testimony. -- It is the sole province of
     the jury to determine not merely the credibility of the
     witnesses, but also the weight and value of their testimony. 
     
3.   Evidence -- jury's verdict supported by substantial evidence -
     - trial court's denial of motion for new trial affirmed. --  
     Where appellee put on a substantial amount of evidence that
     supported the jury's verdict, and appellants failed to show
     there was no rational basis for the jury's verdict, the
     supreme court affirmed the trial court's denial of appellants'
     motion for a new trial.  

4.   Appeal & error -- no authority given for argument -- argument
     without merit. -- Appellant's argument that, because the jury
     deliberated only twenty-five minutes and took only one exhibit
     with it, the trial appeared unfair and thus JNOV was warranted
     for this reason alone was without merit where appellant failed
     to provide any supporting legal authority or convincing
     argument that a minimum time is required for jury deliberation
     or that a short deliberation in itself is grounds for the
     granting of a motion for JNOV or new trial.
     

     Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court; Berlin C. Jones, Judge;
affirmed.
     Christopher C. Mercer, for appellants.
     Hilburn, Calhoon, Harper, Pruniski & Calhoon, Ltd., by:  David
M. Fuqua, for appellee.

     Tom Glaze, Justice.
     On November 21, 1990, John Henry Russell was driving a Ford
pickup, eastbound on Highway 88 near the Altheimer city limits when
it collided with Thomas Colson's Ford Bronco that was heading west
on Highway 88.  The collision took place at or about where the
highway intersects Division Street.  Russell, on April 24, 1992,
filed suit against Colson, alleging the November 21 accident was
caused solely and proximately by Colson.  Following a three-day
trial, the jury returned a verdict in Colson's favor.  Afterwards,
Russell filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict or in
the alternative, for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
     On appeal, Russell argues the trial court erred in denying his
motion for judgment NOV or new trial and asserts the jury lacked
substantial evidence to support its verdict in behalf of Colson. 
Russell misstates this court's standard of review when the party
seeking directed verdict or a motion for judgment notwithstanding
the verdict is the party having the burden of proof in a negligence
case.  As this court stated in Potlatch v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co.,
321 Ark. 314,