Court Opinion

ID: 9530015
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:56:21.905722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:58.799941
License: Public Domain

Supplement to Opinion on Denial of Petition for Reheaeing On petition for rehearing plaintiff contests, for the first time, the power of a reviewing court to consider the weight of the evidence in F. E. L. A. cases and to reverse and remand a judgment as against the manifest weight of the evidence. It is contended that once such court determines that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support submitting the issues to a jury, it has exhausted its function with respect to weighing the judgment against the evidence. Numerous cases are cited and relied upon, principally, Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U. S. 645, 90 L. Ed. 916, 66 S. Ct. 740; Ellis v. Union Pacific R. Co., 329 U. S. 649, 91 L. Ed. 572, 67 S. Ct. 598; Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co., 321 U. S. 29, 88 L. Ed. 520, 64 S. Ct. 409; Williams v. New York Cent. R. Co., 402 Ill. 494, 84 N. E. (2d) 399; Nickell v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 347 Ill. App. 202, 106 N. E. (2d) 738. All of these cases deal with the questions of directed verdicts or judgments notwithstanding the verdicts and not with the reversal and remandment on the ground of a verdict against-the manifest weight of evidence. Standing alone, language from these opinions appears to lend force to plaintiff’s argument. However, considering each case in its entirety, it becomes apparent that they do not support plaintiff’s position. In virtually all of them the reviewing court does in fact carefully detail and consider the evidence. Where it was felt the trial court or a reviewing court weighed conflicting evidence, or considered inferences as true which a jury had already rejected, the lower court’s action in taking the case from the jury was disapproved. The opinion of the court in the case at bar notes the fact that the evidence of an incident occurring and injury therefrom, was highly contradicted but that these issues relate to the credibility of witnesses and were decided by the jury in plaintiff’s favor. Such finding, therefore, was not disturbed. On the issue of the existence of a defective appliance, this court did not weigh conflicting evidence, consider the credibility of the various witnesses, nor follow what it considered a more reasonable inference. It considered only undisputed facts and circumstances. These facts were not susceptible of varying inferences but constituted a manifest weight of evidence in opposition to the claim of a defective or unsafe retriever.  Plaintiff has cited no authority, and we find none, which removes the reviewing court’s historical power to reverse and remand a case for new trial when it believes the verdict to be against the manifest weight of the evidence. The cases cited do illustrate the reluctance of the reviewing courts to disturb findings on issues that are based on credibility of witnesses. We find in these authorities, however, no such restrictive rule of law as urged by plaintiff. Petition for rehearing denied. Scheineman, P. J. and Culbertson, J., concur.