Opinion ID: 1860428
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the trial court erred by granting a new trial on the sole issue of damages.

Text: ¶ 30. The law is well settled on the issue of a trial court's ruling for a new trial. The grant or denial of a motion for a new trial is and always has been a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Green v. Grant, 641 So.2d 1203, 1207-08 (Miss.1994) (citing Anchor Coatings, Inc. v. Marine Indus. Residential Insulation, Inc., 490 So.2d 1210, 1215 (Miss.1986)); see also Motorola Communications & Elecs., Inc. v. Wilkerson, 555 So.2d 713, 723 (Miss.1989). When the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and upon review of the entire record the trial judge is left with a firm and definite conviction that the verdict, if allowed to stand, would work a miscarriage of justice, then the trial court may award a new trial. Id. ¶ 31. In its order, the trial court cited the improper allocation of fault to Jim Avis as the basis for granting a new trial on damages. Because the court made this decision subsequent to and relying upon a decision wherein the incorrect legal standard was applied, this decision to grant a new trial on damages was also a mistake. We find a new trial on damages should not have been granted.