Opinion ID: 2560407
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficient Record Evidence on Causation

Text: We hold that the trial justice did not overlook or misconceive material evidence, and that he was not clearly wrong when he denied the motion for a new trial on damages. Moreover, our review of the record leads us to the firm conclusion that he engaged in the proper analysis when he independently passed upon the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. For example, with respect to Dr. Alford, the trial justice summarized: Credible, consistent and well prepared on direct examination, his credibility was shaken, in the mind of the Court on cross. Of Dr. Russo, the justice said, [k]nowledgeable and well-spoken on direct, Dr. Russo became much more guarded on cross, clearly disliking any questioning of his conclusions.    The Court questioned his conclusions on causation, but he made a clear case for conclusion if the jury found him credible. And of Dr. Mariorenzi, the trial justice averred, [c]ross-examination of Dr. Mariorenzi was strong where it became clear he never saw Mr. Bonn, did not have all of the reports, and is paid significantly by defense attorneys. There was sufficient reason to question Dr. Mariorenzi's conclusions. Additionally, we note with favor that the trial justice set forth sufficient details of his review of the record when passing upon the evidence. To wit, the trial justice said: Mr. Bonn was clearly injured in the collision.    His medical bills were significant   . He lost work for months at a time. His lost wages and medical bills could easily total $50,000. He was in pain and it was documented for a significant time. The physical therapy records and the treatment records preventing him from work are clearly indicative. So the dollar amount of the verdict is not really in question, if it is tied to the cause.    The Court gave a lengthy instruction on causation and also answered a question specifically focused on whether the jury could divide damages and find that only some of the injury was causally related. I suspect that that [sic] this is what they did, given the strong negligence case and the significant damages demonstrated. If the jury found complete causation for every injury and pain felt, the damages could have been much higher. After performing his role as a superjuror, and satisfactorily documenting the record evidence supporting his independent judgment, the trial justice ruled: So returning to the ground for the motion, again there is a significant basis, without going through all of the grounds, the Court does find that the jury had sufficient basis to find both liability, causation, proximate cause and the amount of damages. The Court therefore denies the defendant's motion for a new trial and on the same ground denies the motion for remittitur   . Based upon the foregoing, we hold that the trial justice properly heard, weighed, and passed upon the defendant's Rule 59 new trial motion. In addition, because our standard of review guides us to accord great weight to a trial justice's ruling on a motion for a new trial, we hold that he neither erred nor was clearly wrong. Indeed, we agree with his analysis.