Upchurch Ex Rel. Upchurch v. Rotenberry
2000 WL 769620, 761 So.2d 199 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A jury verdict in a negligence action will not be overturned on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or for a new trial if it is supported by substantial credible evidence. An appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, as the jury is the sole judge of witness credibility and the weight of the evidence.
Facts:
- On October 5, 1992, Teresa Rotenberry was driving her vehicle with Timothy Adam Upchurch as her only passenger.
- While traveling on Highway 182 in Oktibbeha County, Rotenberry lost control of her car, and it left the roadway.
- Rotenberry later stated that she swerved to avoid a large animal, either a deer or a dog, that ran into her lane.
- The vehicle traveled approximately 160 feet after leaving the road before it struck a tree.
- The collision with the tree resulted in the death of Timothy Adam Upchurch.
- There were no eyewitnesses to the collision other than the driver and the passenger.
- The presence of beer in Rotenberry's vehicle was not disputed.
- Five weeks after the accident, Rotenberry signed a written statement detailing that she swerved to avoid an animal, but at trial, she claimed amnesia regarding the event.
Procedural Posture:
- Beverly Ann Upchurch sued Teresa Rotenberry for negligence in the Oktibbeha County Circuit Court, a trial-level court.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- At the close of Upchurch's evidence, Rotenberry moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court denied.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Rotenberry.
- Upchurch filed a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding The Verdict (JNOV) or, in the alternative, for a New Trial.
- The trial court denied Upchurch's post-trial motions and entered a final judgment for Rotenberry.
- Upchurch, as appellant, appealed the judgment and the denial of her motions to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a jury verdict for a defendant in a negligence case, supported by credible evidence that the defendant acted reasonably under the circumstances, survive a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or a new trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Presiding Justice Pittman
Yes, a jury verdict supported by credible evidence survives a motion for JNOV or new trial. In reviewing a trial court's denial of a JNOV, the appellate court must examine all evidence in the light most favorable to the party who won the verdict, Rotenberry. The jury was presented with Rotenberry's explanation that a sudden emergency, the appearance of an animal, caused her to swerve and lose control. It is the exclusive province of the jury to judge the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence. Since the jury found Rotenberry's explanation credible and concluded she acted as a reasonable and prudent person would under similar circumstances, and because this conclusion is supported by some evidence, the court has no authority to substitute its own judgment for the jury's.
Dissenting - Justice McRae
No, the jury verdict should not survive a motion for JNOV because Rotenberry's negligence was established as a matter of law. The undisputed facts—that Rotenberry was speeding, had consumed alcohol, lost control of her car, and failed to apply her brakes for over 160 feet before impact—constitute negligence. Since the passenger, Upchurch, was zero percent at fault, any finding of negligence (even 1%) on Rotenberry's part should result in liability. A driver has an absolute duty to maintain control of their vehicle, and Rotenberry's failure to do so was not excused by the alleged appearance of an animal, especially given the distance traveled before impact. The trial court should have granted a directed verdict on liability and submitted only the issue of damages to the jury.
Analysis:
This case strongly reaffirms the principle of appellate deference to jury findings of fact, particularly in negligence cases where the reasonableness of a party's conduct is the central question. It establishes that as long as a jury's verdict is supported by 'substantial evidence,' even if that evidence is disputed or comes from a witness whose credibility is challenged, an appellate court will not disturb the verdict. The decision highlights the high bar a moving party must clear to obtain a JNOV, effectively insulating jury decisions from being overturned unless no reasonable person could have possibly reached that conclusion. The dissent, however, illustrates the tension in tort law between jury discretion and the doctrine of negligence per se, arguing that certain undisputed facts should establish liability as a matter of law, removing the question from the jury's hands.
