Court Opinion

ID: 9858441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:23:56.32867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:24.006126
License: Public Domain

GODDARD, Presiding Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with- the majority opinion as to all issues raised in this appeal, except the third one relating to the Trial Judge’s role as a Thirteenth Juror.
Some 20 years ago Judge McAmis, in Sherlin v. Roberson, 551 S.W.2d 700, 701 (Tenn.App.1976), wrote a classic statement of the trial court’s duty as a thirteenth juror, which, as pertinent to the third issue raised in this appeal, stated the following:
The ... remarks of the judge make it appear he disassociated himself from the deliberative process which is the peculiar and exclusive province of the juty of which the presiding judge is as much a member as jurors sitting in the jury box. Indeed, it must be said that, by reason of his training as a lawyer and his experience in weighing testimony, he is the most important member of the jury.
It is my view that in this case, which resulted in a verdict in favor of the Defendants, the Trial Judge misapprehended his duty, in that his function was not to review the evidence to see whether it preponderated against the verdict, but rather to review the evidence and see if it preponderated in favor of the verdict.
I accordingly would vacate the judgment and remand the case for a new trial.