Opinion ID: 1969865
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: New Trial Standard of Review

Text: WTC's second contention in this appeal is that the Superior Court erred in granting Aetna's Motion for a New Trial after the jury's verdict. The standard of review is well established. Generally, in an appeal from either the grant or denial of a new trial, the sole question is whether the decision constituted an abuse of discretion. When the motion for a new trial solely on weight of the evidence grounds is denied in a jury case, this Court on appeal is bound by the jury verdict if it is supported by evidence. Delaware Constitution, Art. IV, § 11 [on appeal [in civil cases] from a verdict of a jury, the findings of the jury, if supported by evidence, shall be conclusive]. When the motion is granted on weight of evidence grounds, even given the restrictive standard herein adopted for the trial court and the appellate scrutiny that may be exercised to assure the preservation of the role of the jury, the trial judge's discretionary power is still given the deference required by his presence at trial and his duty to see that there is no miscarriage of justice. Storey v. Camper, Del.Supr., 401 A.2d 458, 465-66 (1979) (citations omitted). This Court's function in reviewing the Superior Court's grant of Aetna's Motion for a New Trial is to determine whether the Superior Court abused its discretion. Id. Applying the limited standard of review, the record reflects that the Superior Court's decision to grant a new trial must be affirmed.