Opinion ID: 2391958
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law and New Trial

Text: We review a motion for judgment as a matter of law in the same manner as the trial justice. We examine: the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, without weighing the evidence or evaluating the credibility of witnesses, and draw from the record all reasonable inferences that support the position of the nonmoving party.    If, after such a review, there remain factual issues upon which reasonable persons might draw different conclusions, the motion for [judgment as a matter of law] must be denied, and the issues must be submitted to the jury for determination. Filippi v. Filippi, 818 A.2d 608, 617 (R.I.2003) (quoting Marketing Design Source, Inc. v. Pranda North America, Inc., 799 A.2d 267, 271 (R.I.2002)). When there are no relevant factual issues and `defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, then the trial justice should grant the motion and dismiss the complaint.' Id. (quoting Marketing Design Source, Inc., 799 A.2d at 271-72). At the close of defendant's case, plaintiffs moved for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability. The trial justice denied the motion because he concluded that if the jury accepted defendant's testimony it could find that she acted reasonably and had overcome the presumption of negligence created in rear-end collision cases. See Lord v. Major, 729 A.2d 697, 700 (R.I.1999). We agree with the trial justice. After the verdict, plaintiffs renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, moved for a new trial. The trial justice denied both motions. We agree with the trial justice's decision to deny the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law for the reasons stated above. Furthermore, the trial justice also properly denied the motion for new trial. It is well established that the trial justice acts as a `superjuror' in considering a motion for a new trial. Saber v. Dan Angelone Chevrolet, Inc., 811 A.2d 644, 652 (R.I.2002) (quoting English v. Green, 787 A.2d 1146, 1149 (R.I.2001)). In doing so, the trial justice reviews the evidence, comments on the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, and exercises his    independent judgment [in] his    determination either granting or denying a motion for new trial   . English, 787 A.2d at 1149 (quoting Kurczy v. St. Joseph Veterans Association, Inc., 713 A.2d 766, 770 (R.I.1998)). If the trial justice determines that the evidence is evenly balanced or that reasonable minds could differ on the verdict, he should not disturb the jury's decision. Saber, 811 A.2d at 652 (quoting Rezendes v. Beaudette, 797 A.2d 474, 477-78 (R.I.2002)). We will not disturb that determination unless the trial justice has overlooked or misconceived material and relevant evidence or otherwise was clearly wrong. English, 787 A.2d at 1149 (quoting Kurczy, 713 A.2d at 770). The trial justice provided a brief recitation of the facts and his jury instructions in considering the motion for new trial. He noted the jury's decision to accept defendant's testimony as true and that the jury appropriately weighed the evidence, which permitted them to conclude that the plaintiff had failed to prove that [defendant] was negligent. The trial justice then concluded that the evidence was evenly balanced, [and] that different minds could fairly come to a different conclusion as to the actions of the defendant in this matter. The trial justice's review of the evidence, although brief, was sufficient and covered all relevant aspects of law and fact. Although a rear-end collision does create prima facie evidence of negligence, it does not foreclose the issue of liability. Lord, 729 A.2d at 700. A jury retains the fact-finding power to determine whether a defendant acted as a reasonable person in the factual situation presented. See Galusha v. Carlson, 120 R.I. 204, 208, 386 A.2d 634, 636 (1978). This jury found that defendant acted reasonably, and the trial justice properly reviewed its finding. As a result, we conclude that the trial justice did not err in denying the motion for new trial.