62 A.3d 512
R.I.2013Background
- Mead was crossing Taunton Avenue in East Providence when she was struck by a eastbound McNamara vehicle, suffering severe injuries including the loss of a leg.
- Mead sued McNamara and, after amendments, Sanofi-Aventis U.S., Inc. as McNamara’s employer; trial court later denied Mead’s motion for a new trial following a jury verdict for the defendants.
- Three eyewitnesses (DaSilva, Gomes, Cunha) testified from different angles about Mead’s crossing and the events leading to the collision, while Mead offered limited memory of the incident.
- The trial court found the liability evidence conflicted and credibility questionable, including DaSilva’s possible motive to color events and Cunha’s observations about Mead and braking/no skid marks.
- The Superior Court entered judgment for the defendants; Mead appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, challenging the denial of a new trial.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the denial under a deference standard, determining the trial judge did not clearly err in weighing credibility and evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying a new trial | Mead contends evidence preponderated against the verdict. | Defendants argue the verdict was supported by conflicting, credible testimony. | No reversible error; reasonable minds could differ; denial affirmed. |
| Whether the trial court overlooked photographs showing location of vehicles | Photographs show McNamara had time to avoid the collision. | Photographs do not prove negligence; argument waived for not raising below. | Not error; argument waived; no overturned result. |
| Whether three eyewitness accounts establish McNamara’s negligence for failing to see Mead | Eyewitnesses observed Mead crossing; McNamara should have seen her. | Eye-witness credibility and safety considerations undermine finding of negligence. | Trial court reasonably found no preponderance of negligence; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- McGarry v. Pielech, 47 A.3d 271 (R.I. 2012) (trial court acts as superjuror in new-trial review)
- Yi Gu v. Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, 38 A.3d 1093 (R.I. 2012) (great deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- Ruggieri v. Big G Supermarkets, Inc., 114 R.I. 211 (1975) (standard for weighing conflicting evidence)
- Botelho v. Caster’s, Inc., 970 A.2d 541 (R.I. 2009) ( credibility and material-evidence considerations on appeal)
- Morgera v. Hanover Insurance Co., 655 A.2d 698 (R.I. 1995) (appellate review of verdicts for substantial justice)
- Moreau v. Flanders, 15 A.3d 565 (R.I. 2011) (evidentiary issues not raised below may be waived on appeal)
- Chase v. Bouchard, 671 A.2d 794 (R.I. 1996) (procedural timing for raising issues on appeal)
- Donnelly v. Grey Goose Lines, Inc., 667 A.2d 792 (R.I. 1995) (standard of review for trial court rulings)
- Bajakian v. Erinakes, 880 A.2d 843 (R.I. 2005) (superior-court discretion in new-trial determinations)