Court Opinion

ID: 9514569
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:50:32.081603+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:18.932576
License: Public Domain

AMUNDSON, Justice
(dissenting).
[¶ 20.] I would dissent for the following reasons.
[¶ 21.] This is the second occasion that we have had to review this trial court’s granting of a new trial. In the first case, plaintiff recovered inadequate damages so the trial court granted a new trial. After the second jury verdict, the trial court again considered the results. The trial court rendered its memorandum decision on October 13,1998, which stated:
Based on counsels’ arguments and my review of the record I am satisfied that I erred as a matter of law when I did not grant Plaintiffs motion for a directed verdict on the question of negligence at the close of all of the evidence and that, further and alternatively, the evidence was insufficient upon which the jury could find no negligence on the party of Defendants.
[¶ 22.] We have previously stated in State v. Collier, 381 N.W.2d 269, 272 (S.D.1986), that “a motion for new trial addresses the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose superior knowledge of all the facts and circumstances of the case enables him to know the requirements of justice.” I would say that the trial court in this case had “superior knowledge” of what went on during these two cases and in exercising its judicial duty, acknowledged that an error was made. I would be hard pressed to review this cold record and hold that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial after its two voyages through the troubled waters of this case.