Court Opinion

ID: 9722768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:49:37.395408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:39.848614
License: Public Domain

*925BROWN (Gerald), P. J., Concurring.
The power of the trial court is singularly at its greatest in deciding whether to grant a new trial, leaving the appellate court virtually powerless to reinstate a most reasonable jury verdict.
Here the jury reached a most reasonable and just result. The trial was fair. The jury applied the law to the facts. It answered the special verdict questions requested by the defendants. It solved one of the great problems which law schools love to indulge their students, proximate cause. It found Candido’s negligence was not the proximate cause of his injuries. Substantial evidence supports this finding: The expert Whalley’s testimony placing Candido in a zone of danger where he could not avoid the collision; Thurman, the driver behind Candido, barely avoided the accident by seeing a flash, slowed and hit his brakes.
There was gross negligence on Huitt’s part, driving and stopping in the fast lane when he knew or should have known of the truck’s power and light failure, with the truck’s rear reflectors covered with dirt, making the truck invisible. Understandably, the jury found this conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident. Considering the very serious injuries sustained by Candido, the damages were well within reason, if not low.
My experience is that trial courts routinely deny motions for new trials under facts like these. Why the trial court granted a new trial here is difficult to comprehend.
Acknowledging the vast power of the trial court, I reluctantly concur in affirmance.