Opinion ID: 2108204
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Standard Relevant to the Motion for New Trial

Text: In passing on a motion for a new trial, the trial justice acts in a role that we have metaphorically described as being that of a `super juror' or a `thirteenth juror.' Kurczy v. St. Joseph Veterans Association, Inc., 713 A.2d 766, 770 (R.I.1998) (quoting State v. Doctor, 690 A.2d 321, 329 (R.I.1997)). That metaphor makes it clear that the trial justice is to make an independent appraisal of the evidence in the light of his [or her] charge to the jury. Kurczy, 713 A.2d at 770 (internal quotation marks omitted). In making that independent appraisal, the trial justice can weigh the evidence and assess the witnesses' credibility. Id. In addition, he or she can reject some evidence and draw inferences which are reasonable in view of the testimony and evidence in the record. Id. If the trial justice determines that the evidence is evenly balanced or is such that reasonable minds in considering the same evidence could come to different conclusions, the trial justice must allow the verdict to stand. Marcotte v. Harrison, 443 A.2d 1225, 1232 (R.I.1982); see also Bajakian v. Erinakes, 880 A.2d 843, 851 (R.I.2005). If, however, his or her `superior judgment' tells [the trial justice] that the verdict is against the preponderance of the evidence and thereby fails to either do justice to the parties or respond to the merits of the controversy, the verdict must be set aside. Ruggieri v. Big G Supermarkets, Inc., 114 R.I. 211, 216, 330 A.2d 810, 812(1975). If the trial justice has carried out the duties required by Rule 59 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure and our decided cases, his or her decision is accorded great weight by this Court and will not be disturbed unless the plaintiff can show that the trial justice overlooked or misconceived material and relevant evidence or was otherwise clearly wrong. International Depository, Inc. v. State, 603 A.2d 1119, 1123 (R.I.1992) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Candido v. University of Rhode Island, 880 A.2d 853, 857 (R.I.2005); Pollard v. Hastings, 862 A.2d 770, 777 (R.I.2004); Kurczy, 713 A.2d at 770.