Opinion ID: 2346556
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Motion for New Trial and Judgment

Text: Appellant filed a motion for a new trial, alleging that the trial judge was biased in favor of Boyd, which had previously done roof repair work for the judge. [6] Appellant also argued that she was entitled to a new trial because the trial court abused its discretion in precluding her from testifying about the value of lost or damaged personal property. Appellant further requested judgment on her emotional distress claim against Boyd and a reinstatement of her claims for property loss. The trial court denied appellant's motions. The submitted materials further confirmed the trial court's original decision precluding appellant from testifying as to the value of lost or damaged property. The trial court denied the motion for judgment against Boyd, or for a new trial, stating that the personal injury claim against Boyd alleging emotional distress presented a classic jury question inasmuch as the causal relationship between the fire on the roof and Ms. Robinson's emotional distress was very much in doubt.