Opinion ID: 2303970
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: post trial proceedings

Text: The Estate moved for a new trial because: [t]he jury's verdict that neither of the defendants was negligent is not reasonably based upon any of the evidence and clearly contrary to the great weight of evidence presented at trial. No reasonable juror could have reached a verdict finding that both drivers were not negligent when one of them clearly disregarded a red light. The Estate asserted that [o]nly if the plaintiff did not meet the burden to prove that at least one of the defendants disregarded the red light could the jury render a verdict in favor of both defendants. The Estate further contended that the trial judge improperly excluded the post accident photographs. Denying the Estate's motion for new trial, the trial judge concluded that the jury could have reasonably reached its verdict if it found that the evidence was evenly balanced and the Estate, therefore, had not met its burden of proof. The trial judge further noted that the court had discretion to exclude the photographs if they had not been properly identified. He held that Shore was entitled to rely on the pretrial stipulation to prepare her case unless preventing manifest injustice required modifying the pretrial stipulation. The stipulation did not identify photographs of the Youngs' car. The judge also noted that the plaintiff was still able to introduce evidence of Shore's speed through its accident reconstruction expert based on the same facts that it contended would be established by the photographs of the Youngs' car.