Bruce Zarembka v. Kali Whelan, 176 A.3d 485

On November 17, 2011, Zarembka and Kali Whelan were involved in an automobile collision in Providence; Zarembka sued Kali (driver) and John Whelan (registrant) alleging negligence causing personal injuries.
The case went to arbitration, which awarded Zarembka $7,500; defendants rejected the award and the matter proceeded to jury trial.
On May 16, 2016, the jury returned a verdict for the defendants; judgment entered for defendants.
Zarembka moved for judgment as a matter of law, additur, and/or a new trial (later clarified and treated as a motion for new trial). He argued Kali’s trial testimony (she was driving 30 mph in a 25 mph zone, did not slow, and knew the intersection) amounted to an admission of liability.
The trial justice reviewed the conflicting testimony (plaintiff’s version that Kali left her lane and struck him versus Kali’s version that she had a green light and plaintiff cut into her lane), photographs, and credibility, then denied the motion for a new trial and denied defendants’ motion for costs.
Zarembka appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial; the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the trial justice properly exercised his discretion and did not misconceive material evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial justice misconceived or overlooked material evidence in denying a new trial	Kali’s admission she drove 30 mph in a 25 mph zone, didn’t slow, and knew the intersection effectively admitted negligence, so a new trial was required	Testimony was conflicting; reasonable minds could differ; credibility and facts supported the jury verdict	Affirmed — trial justice adequately considered the evidence and reasonably concluded the testimony conflicted, so no new trial was warranted
Whether costs should have been imposed on plaintiff after post-trial motions	(Plaintiff opposed costs implicitly by pursuing post-trial relief)	Defendants sought costs under G.L. 1956 § 9-22-5 and Rule 54(d)/(e) after prevailing at trial	Affirmed trial justice’s denial of defendants’ motion for costs (trial justice denied costs)

Bitgood v. Greene, 108 A.3d 1023 (trial justice’s new-trial ruling entitled to great weight)
Botelho v. Caster’s, Inc., 970 A.2d 541 (standard referenced for new-trial review)
Quillen v. Macera, 160 A.3d 1006 (trial justice acts as a superjuror on new-trial motions)
Rhode Island Managed Eye Care, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island, 996 A.2d 684 (trial-justice role and deference on new-trial motions)
Lemont v. Estate of Ventura, 157 A.3d 31 (procedural note re: transcripts and record on appeal)
Bourdon’s, Inc. v. Ecin Industries, Inc., 704 A.2d 747 (trial justice need not exhaustively recount all evidence when denying new trial)
Panarello v. State, Department of Corrections, 88 A.3d 350 (sufficient discussion of evidence need not include every detail)
Connor v. Schlemmer, 996 A.2d 98 (affirmance standard for new-trial rulings)