Opinion ID: 1751995
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Verdict against the individual plaintiffs

Text: The jury found that Hanson and Oldcastle were not liable to any of the individual plaintiffs except the members of the Parker family and the Schwieker family, comprising 5 individuals. The remaining 13 individual plaintiffs argue that these findings were inconsistent and contrary to the great weight of the evidence. This Court will not disturb a jury's verdict unless the evidence against the verdict is so much more credible and convincing to the mind than the evidence supporting the verdict that it clearly indicates that the jury's verdict was wrong and unjust. Campbell v. Burns, 512 So.2d 1341, 1343 (Ala.1987). Moreover, `denial of a motion for a new trial strengthens the presumption of correctness afforded to a jury verdict.' Keibler-Thompson Corp. v. Steading, 907 So.2d 435, 440 (Ala.2005)(quoting Bowers, 827 So.2d at 73). The plaintiffs have failed to show that the jury's verdict as to these remaining 13 plaintiffs should be set aside. A reasonable jury could have concluded from the evidence that the Parkers and the Schwiekers were damaged by Hanson and Oldcastle's actions, but that the other 13 individual plaintiffs were not. [3] The verdict as to these remaining 13 plaintiffs was not plainly wrong or unjust, and it must stand.