Court Opinion

ID: 9697156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:07:28.566209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:55.638852
License: Public Domain

PAIR, Senior Judge,
dissenting:
In applying the standard of review for trial court orders granting new trials, this court must determine if the decisionmaker failed to consider a relevant factor, “whether he relied upon an improper factor, and whether the reasons given reasonably support the conclusion.” Pyne v. Jamaica Nutrition Holdings, Ltd., 497 A.2d 118, 126 (D.C.1985) (citing Johnson v. United States, 398 A.2d 354, 365 (D.C.1979)). My review of the record to this end compels in my opinion a conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted a new trial.
The majority asserts that “two disinterested witnesses corroborated the most important aspects of Mr. Wagner’s testimony: first, that Mrs. Felton walked into the side of his car; and second, that Mr. Wagner’s car did not cross the double yellow line.” The majority, however, overlooks many of the discrepancies in the testimony: which lane Wagner was in, his speed, where on the car the point of impact occurred, what happened when Felton was hit, what she was doing, and where she was looking at the time of the accident.
*298In contrast to Wagner’s testimony, Fel-ton testified that Connecticut Avenue between H and I Streets consisted of four lanes — two parking and two traffic. She testified also that she was crossing Connecticut Avenue, west to east, by negotiating between parked cars and in front of the stopped bread truck, and crossed the double lines dividing northbound from southbound traffic. At the center line, she stopped, looked both ways, and proceeded forward only to freeze when she caught from the corner of her eye a car. The car had come from behind the truck in the southbound lane and was crossing the double lines into the northbound lane. Felton was struck by Wagner’s vehicle, flew into the air, and fell onto the front of his car and, finally, onto the ground. From her estimation, Felton, concededly inexperienced at estimating distances, claimed that there was insufficient room for a car to pass the bread truck without going into the northbound lane.
The bread truck driver, Blanks, offered his version of the incident. He was stopped at a light in the southbound lane on Connecticut Avenue with no cars to his left. According to him, there was room for a car to pass on the left. He observed Felton, reading a book or a pamphlet, walk out of a building, pass in front of his truck and be struck by a car. Felton, Blanks testified, hit the car close to the door and windshield and spun forward. Blanks indicated a dent on the side of the car at the point of impact.
On cross-examination, however, Blanks’ deposition testimony, in which he said that Felton was thrown forward, was read. Blanks’ earlier testimony also suggested that Wagner was in the northbound lane. Despite his answer in the negative to a query concerning whether he had ever demanded money for his testimony, Wagner’s attorney stipulated to the jury that after appearing twice for trial and not being called, Blanks had demanded a $300 witness fee for his testimony. The attorney further stipulated that unless paid, Blanks threatened to contact Felton’s attorney and request a second deposition.
A second eyewitness, a cab driver, was in the northbound lane at the time of the accident. He also testified he observed Felton walking across Connecticut Avenue. Unlike Blanks, who testified he saw Felton reading, Rouse testified he saw Felton waving to someone behind her so that she wasn’t facing the direction she was walking and not paying attention, and walked directly into the side of the car. Wagner, Rouse testified, was going not ten to fifteen miles per hour, but two to three miles per hour and was in the southbound lane.
Evidence in this trial was therefore conflicting and interested. It is the office of the jury, not the judge, to make judgments concerning evidence. See, e.g., Acqui v. Isaac, 342 A.2d 370 (D.C.1975). Sufficient evidence was presented in this case to support a jury verdict for the plaintiff. The jury, not unreasonably, chose to give credence to the plaintiff’s account and to reject the contradicting testimony of the defendant — an interested witness, of Blanks — an impeached and potentially interested witness, and Rouse — an eyewitness. I would conclude, after a scrutiny of the evidence, that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted defendant’s motion for a new trial on the basis on the verdict being against the clear weight of the evidence.
While the thrust of the trial court’s opinion concerned weight of the evidence, it also relied on the potential prejudice caused by a reference to insurance to support its grant of a new trial. The majority bolsters its argument for affirmance by asserting the latter ground is dispositive, if not the former. See majority opinion, supra n. 8. Despite the majority’s assertion to the contrary, this ground is equally inadequate.1 *299In addressing this issue, this court has stated:
We think it may be fairly assumed that the average juror in an automobile negligence case suspects that the defendant has liability insurance and that the case is being defended by the insurance company. At any rate, we feel that the time has come when the mere mention of insurance in a negligence case ought not ipso facto require a mistrial.
See Parks v. Ratcliff, 240 A.2d 659, 661 (D.C.1968).
An innocuous allusion to insurance which may have influenced the jury is therefore a ground too speculative to warrant a new trial. See Baber v. Buckley, 322 A.2d 265, 267 (D.C.1974). Furthermore, a motion for mistrial — the appropriate remedy for prejudicial remarks — had already been properly denied in this case and curative instructions declined by defense counsel. Because improper factors were relied on and the reasons given do not support the conclusion, I would find an abuse of discretion and reverse.

. Nor can I agree that the trial court’s comment on the defendant’s demeanor was not relied on by the court. See majority opinion, supra, n. 6. Believing it was a factor, I would deem it a basis too speculative to serve as a legitimate basis for *299a new trial. See Baber v. Buckley, 322 A.2d 265, 267 (D.C.1974).