Opinion ID: 1811748
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the trial court erred in denying dr. wright's and semmes-murphy's motion for a new trial.

Text: ¶ 45. Dr. Wright next argues the circuit court erred in denying his motion for a new trial. He states the causation testimony discussed above was speculation and argues no connection was made between the breach of duty and Mr. Phillips's injury and death. He further argues that the weight of the testimony of the experts indicated it was more likely Mr. Phillips would not have survived or avoided permanent injury because he was not properly treated on March 17, rather than March 24, and that the passage of time between the 24th and 28th did not affect Mr. Phillips's prognosis. He also argues the length of the jury's deliberation indicated it was biased against him. The Phillipses state that Dr. Wright's arguments here simply rehash those made in the previous assignment of error. They assert sufficient proof is in the record to show a causal link between the breach of duty and Mr. Phillips's injury and death. Arguing this case was a classic battle of the experts, the Phillipses submit the trial court correctly denied Dr. Wright's motion for a new trial. ¶ 46. This Court's standard for reviewing a trial court's judgment on a motion for a new trial also should be familiar: Where an appellant challenges a jury verdict as being against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or the product of bias, prejudice or improper passion, this Court will show great deference to the jury verdict by resolving all conflicts in the evidence and every permissible inference from the evidence in the appellee's favor. Bobby Kitchens, Inc. v. Mississippi Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 560 So.2d 129, 131 (Miss. 1989). Only when the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice will this Court disturb it on appeal. Herrington v. Spell, 692 So.2d 93, 103-04 (Miss.1997). Venton v. Beckham, 845 So.2d 676, 684 (Miss.2003). See also White, 905 So.2d at 510. In this context, the Court assumes a role as a thirteenth juror. Johnson v. St. DominicsJackson Mem'l. Hosp., 967 So.2d 20, 23 (Miss.2007). This Court finds that the Phillipses are correct and this issue is without merit. ¶ 47. The Phillipses assert that Dr. Wright's causation arguments are the same as those raised in his arguments about the sufficiency of the evidence. We find these arguments are similarly without merit when examining the weight of the evidence. There is evidence of sufficient weight in the record to support the jury's conclusion that Dr. Wright's negligence caused or contributed to Mr. Phillips's injury and death. ¶ 48. We also find that the jury's deliberation time, considered alone, does not show bias against Dr. Wright that warranted a new trial. The jury retired to deliberate on their verdict at 4:06 p.m. and returned with a verdict at 5:16 p.m. the same day. There is no legal yardstick to measure how much time a jury must deliberate before returning its verdict. Short deliberations do not automatically demonstrate bias or prejudice. Ekornes-Duncan v. Rankin Med. Ctr., 808 So.2d 955, 962 (Miss.2002) (judgment on verdict returned less than fifteen minutes after jury retired affirmed.) We find this issue is without merit.