Opinion ID: 2629275
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Hogg's Motion for a New Trial

Text: Hogg subsequently moved for a new trial, claiming that the jury's verdict was inconsistent with the court's instructions on negligence and causation. His motion pointed out that the judge is free to weigh the evidence for himself . . . and may set aside a verdict even though there is substantial evidence to support it, and noted that [t]he judge is not required to view the evidence most favorably to the verdict winner. The motion also noted that the appellate court view[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party [2] when reviewing a trial court's denial of a new trial. In support of the jury's verdict, Raven argued, among other things, that the evidence presented at trial could have permitted the jury to find Raven negligent in ways that did not cause the accident. For example, Raven argued that the jury could have found that Raven should have moved some of the warning signs to more obvious places but that this would have made no difference since Mr. Hogg did not pay any attention to the signs. The trial court denied Hogg's motion.