Opinion ID: 1952771
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in granting the Appellant's Motion for new trial on February 11, 1991, after the jury returned a verdict for the appellee in the second trial of this action?

Text: ¶ 12. Allstate argues that the trial court erred in granting a new trial when the jury found for Allstate in the second trial of this case. The trial judge found that the evidence was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. ¶ 13. As all know, the grant or denial of a motion for a new trial is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. We reverse only where there has been an abuse of that discretion. McGory I, 527 So.2d at 637; Ross-King Walker, Inc. v. Henson, 672 So.2d 1188, 1192 (Miss. 1996). In considering a motion for a new trial, the trial judge in exercising his sound discretion may grant the motion thereby overruling the jury's verdict only where such a verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or is contrary to the law. Junior Food Stores, Inc. v. Rice, 671 So.2d 67, 76 (Miss. 1996). ¶ 14. The key question here is whether the jury's finding that there was clear and convincing evidence of the element of opportunity was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Allstate argues that it presented evidence of opportunity for the McGorys to set the fire. Specifically, Allstate cites inconsistencies in Bobby McGory's alibi and the fact that Dorothy McGory was nearby in her barbecue restaurant and that she was in and out of the rental house the morning of the fire. However, it was undisputed that Dorothy McGory was in the restaurant all afternoon prior to the fire. There were inconsistencies in Bobby McGory's testimony as to where he was prior to the fire. However, it is undisputed that, when the fire started, he was reached at a friend's house several miles away from the rental house. There was no evidence that either Bobby or Dorothy McGory had opportunity to set the fire or procure the setting of the fire by someone else  much less clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, the verdict in favor of Allstate was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence such that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in ordering the new trial. ¶ 15. Under the authority of a long line of cases, it is a general rule of this Court to respect and follow the holding of the trial judge with reference to his order in granting a new trial since such an order is not a final disposition of the case. Standard Products, Inc. v. Patterson, 317 So.2d 376, 379 (Miss. 1975). When, however, all the testimony has been heard and all the arguments delivered and the verdict returned, if, upon a completed view of the entire case, the trial judge is then of the opinion that the verdict is against the overwhelming weight, or clearly against the great preponderance, of the evidence, his duty is, upon a motion for a new trial, to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial. In the latter respect, and to the extent mentioned, the trial judge has a responsible part in the final determination of the issue upon the facts, and his duty of superintendence in that regard is one of his constitutional obligations. Spradlin v. Smith, 494 So.2d 354, 357 (Miss. 1986). ¶ 16. The trial judge responsibly executed his constitutional obligations in this regard and did not abuse his discretion in ordering a new trial. Allstate's argument to the contrary is without merit.