 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Martin v. Evans4/24/1998
ing the accident, it was the jury's duty to make a credibility determination and to decide whether Evans exercised ordinary care under the circumstances. The jury obviously chose to believe Evans and Steverson, and found that Evans was not negligent.
However, the trial court concluded that " nder all of the facts and circumstances of this case, even when viewed most favorably to the verdict winner, this Court cannot accept the jury's Conclusion that Evans was not negligent." In support of its Conclusion, the trial court cited evidence supporting the fact that Evans made no effort during the two minutes after he entered his cab and prior to putting his truck in motion, to determine if there was anyone or anything behind his vehicle. This, coupled with the facts that the rest area was busy and there were "blind spots" in the mirrors, caused the trial court to reach its Conclusion.
However, the evidence equally supports a finding that Evans exercised ordinary care under the circumstances. Evans testified that he parked in what he believed to be the last legal parking space in the row. In fact, he stated that he had to park his tractor-trailer with the cab at an angle to the trailer because it was the last spot and there was barely enough room for his vehicle. When he returned to his truck, no one was parked behind him. Before backing up, he activated his four-way flashers and released his emergency brakes, which he knew made a loud hissing sound. Then, he proceeded to move the truck backwards "slower than you could walk." N.T. at 273. Therefore, if the jury were to believe Evans' account of the events, he took the necessary precautions required by the circumstances and proceeded with care.
A resolution of whether Evans was negligent relied upon a credibility determination and the jury's assessment of what constituted ordinary care under the circumstances. Because this assessment was solely within the province of the jury, Randt, the trial court was not at liberty to reassess the evidence and make its own credibility determinations simply because it would have reached a different Conclusion. Thompson. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion by disregarding the jury's credibility determination and substituting its own. The verdict was not so contrary to the evidence so as to shock one's sense of Justice.
We reverse and reinstate the jury's verdict.
WE VACATE THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, AND WE VACATE IN ITS ENTIRETY THE SUSPENSION OF APPELLEE JOSEPH S. TAYLOR'S DRIVER'S LICENSE THAT THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IMPOSED EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 20, 1995 AS A RESULT OF APPELLEE'S CONVICTION IN OHIO FOR DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL.
ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DISREGARDING THE JURY'S CREDIBILITY DETERMINATION AND SUBSTITUTING ITS OWN. THE VERDICT WAS NOT SO CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE SO AS TO SHOCK ONE'S SENSE OF JUSTICE.
WE REVERSE AND REINSTATE THE JURY'S VERDICT.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|