Court Opinion

ID: 9644988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:09:47.608279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:21.068021
License: Public Domain

FRANKS, Judge,
dissenting.
I would affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.
The Trial Judge at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing stated “... [T]oo close a case. I don’t believe that Mr. Goodman has made out a case.... ” Seay’s motion for a new trial asks the Court to grant a new trial based on “newly discovered evidence,” or in the alternative moved “for a further evidentiary hearing so that the Court may consider the evidence as discovered by Plaintiff.” The Court permitted the “discovered” witness’ testimony in evidence and awarded the judgment to Seay.
The discretion of a Trial Court in granting a new trial on newly discovered evidence is “very broad.” Brown v. University Nursing Home, Inc., 496 S.W.2d 503 (Tenn.App.1972). Newly discovered evidence must be of such character as to convince the Court that an injustice has been done and *402that a new trial will change the result. Travis v. Bacherig, 7 Tenn.App. 638 (1928). The evidence considered meets this test.
A further requirement is that by exercise of “reasonable diligence” the evidence could not have been procured for the trial. I am not prepared to hold as a matter of law on this record that Plaintiffs attorney did not exercise reasonable diligence in preparing the case for trial. Before us, the burden is on the City of Knoxville to affirmatively show the Trial Judge abused his discretion in granting the new trial. See Esstman v. Boyd, 605 S.W.2d 237 (Tenn.App.1979). It is presumed the Trial Judge properly exercised his judicial discretion, and in the absence of showing that an injustice has been done appellate courts will not reverse. Jones v. State, 79 Tenn. 468 (1883).
The evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the Trial Court. T.R.A.P. Rule 13(d). I would therefore affirm at Appellant’s costs.