Martin v. Evans
711 A.2d 458 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court abuses its discretion when it grants a new trial on the grounds that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence where the verdict rests on the jury's resolution of conflicting testimony. A court may not usurp the jury's role as the sole arbiter of credibility simply because the court would have reached a different conclusion.
Facts:
- Weldon R. Evans, a truck driver, pulled his forty-five-foot tractor-trailer into what he believed was the last parallel parking spot at a rest stop, angling the cab to fit.
- After returning from the restroom, Evans checked behind his truck and saw no one was parked there.
- Evans spent approximately two minutes in his cab filling out his logbook before preparing to reverse.
- Evans testified that he activated his four-way flashers and released his emergency brakes, which emit a loud hissing sound for two seconds, before backing up.
- Anthony Martin and Rochester Steverson parked their twenty-foot box truck approximately seven to ten feet directly behind Evans' tractor-trailer.
- Martin was standing or walking between the two trucks when Evans began to reverse his tractor-trailer.
- Evans' truck pinned Martin against the smaller truck, causing injuries to Martin's right arm and back.
- Testimony was contradictory regarding whether Evans activated his flashers, whether the brakes hissed, who was driving the smaller truck, and Martin's exact position when the incident occurred.
Procedural Posture:
- Anthony Martin sued Weldon R. Evans and his employers in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) for negligence.
- Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that defendant Evans was not negligent.
- The trial court entered a verdict in favor of Evans.
- Martin filed a motion for a new trial, arguing the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
- The trial court granted Martin's motion for a new trial.
- Evans, as appellant, appealed the order for a new trial to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (intermediate appellate court).
- The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's order granting a new trial.
- Evans, as appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in granting a new trial on the basis that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence, where the verdict was based on the jury's resolution of conflicting testimony regarding the defendant's negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Newman, Justice
Yes. The trial court abused its discretion by substituting its own credibility determination for that of the jury. A new trial should not be granted because of a mere conflict in testimony or because the trial judge would have arrived at a different conclusion on the same facts. The parties presented contradictory evidence regarding whether Evans took reasonable precautions, and resolving such conflicts is the sole province of the jury. The jury was entitled to believe Evans' testimony that he checked behind his truck, activated warning signals, and reversed slowly, which would support a finding that he exercised ordinary care. Because the evidence could support the jury's finding, the verdict was not so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice, and the trial court erred in ordering a new trial.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the principle of deference to the jury's role as the fact-finder, particularly in cases hinging on witness credibility. It limits the power of a trial judge to act as a 'thirteenth juror' and overturn a verdict based on a personal disagreement with the jury's assessment of conflicting testimony. The ruling clarifies that a verdict is not 'against the weight of the evidence' simply because the evidence was contested; rather, the verdict must be truly unsupportable by any reasonable view of the evidence. This precedent protects the finality of jury verdicts in negligence actions and maintains a clear division between the roles of the judge and jury.
