Opinion ID: 2360235
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The facts do support the jury's verdict

Text: We preface our discussion by noting that the evidence supported the jury's verdict here, and historically, the trial judge's inherent power to grant a new trial has been tempered by the deference given to a jury's findings as required by the Delaware Constitution. [17] Little evidence supported Reinco's alleged negligent design and manufacture. That issue essentially focused on which expert was more credible. The experts' respective testimony could have convinced a reasonable juror that Clauser was more qualified than Colberg to address the factual issues related to negligent manufacture and design. Clauser was a metallurgical engineer who had extensive experience designing large industrial type machines. [18] Colberg, was in contrast, a mechanical engineer with no experience in designing large industrial machines. Moreover, Colberg did not have Clauser's extensive experience with the metallurgical issues that arise when stainless steel was used for only portions of large industrial machines. [19] Given the credentials of the parties' respective experts, the jury could have chosen to accept Clauser's opinion that the Schedule 40 carbon steel pipe was a fail safe product that required no warnings because it would leak before breaking completely and to reject Colberg's opinions. Thus, there is credible testimony supporting the jury's finding that Reinco did not negligently design or manufacture the hydroseeder.