Leslie Dominguez v. Wilfredo Rosa Otero, 229 A.3d 405

On December 8, 2014, Leslie Dominguez (driver) and Marie B. Dominguez (owner) sued Wilfredo Rosa Otero for negligence after a motor-vehicle collision at the intersection of Eaton Street/Donelson Street and Douglas Avenue in Providence.
Plaintiffs' witnesses (Leslie and passenger Marco Carrillo) testified Leslie stopped at a red light, then made a slow left turn on green and was struck when Otero allegedly accelerated; plaintiffs claimed Otero failed to keep a proper lookout.
Defendant Otero and his passenger/wife testified they stopped at a red light, saw no cars across the intersection, and that Leslie entered the intersection moving fast and struck Otero's vehicle.
A jury returned a verdict finding Otero not negligent; it did not answer further form questions on causation, comparative negligence, or damages.
Plaintiffs moved for a new trial; the trial justice found plaintiffs' testimony "more credible and consistent" but concluded "no witness was devoid of credibility" and that reasonable minds could differ, so he denied the motion.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, holding the trial justice did not misconceive material evidence and properly applied the standard for granting a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial justice erred by denying a new trial because testimony allegedly proved Leslie stopped, so Otero failed to maintain lookout	Plaintiffs: testimony that Leslie stopped was unrefuted, so Otero breached lookout duty	Defendant: conflicting testimony showed reasonable dispute about positioning and speed; jury could credit defendant	Court: Denial affirmed — conflicting testimony justified deference to jury and trial justice; reasonable minds could differ
Whether trial justice contradicted himself by finding plaintiffs more credible yet affirming jury verdict	Plaintiffs: trial justice's credibility finding required granting new trial	Defendant: trial justice properly performed independent appraisal and may still deny a new trial if evidence is evenly balanced	Court: Denial affirmed — trial justice may find plaintiffs more credible yet conclude evidence still balanced so verdict stands
Whether photographic evidence compelled finding of side-impact favoring plaintiffs	Plaintiffs: photos supported plaintiffs' version	Defendant: photos consistent with front-left to front-left contact and did not conclusively resolve credibility	Court: Photographic evidence did not defeat conflicting testimony; trial justice did not misconceive evidence

Branson v. Louttit, 213 A.3d 417 (R.I. 2019) (appellate deference to trial justice ruling on a motion for a new trial)
Letizio v. Ritacco, 204 A.3d 597 (R.I. 2019) (trial justice acts as a "super juror" and must independently appraise the evidence)
Bajakian v. Erinakes, 880 A.2d 843 (R.I. 2005) (courts accord great deference to trial-justice credibility assessments)
Donnelly v. Grey Goose Lines, Inc., 667 A.2d 792 (R.I. 1995) (same — deference to credibility findings)
King v. Huntress, Inc., 94 A.3d 467 (R.I. 2014) (new-trial test is whether verdict is against the preponderance of evidence and fails to do justice)
Kemp v. PJC of Rhode Island, Inc., 184 A.3d 712 (R.I. 2018) (upholding denial of new trial where testimony for both sides was credible)
State v. DiCarlo, 987 A.2d 867 (R.I. 2010) (criminal-context discussion of trial-justice role in evaluating verdict)
State v. Rivera, 839 A.2d 497 (R.I. 2003) (standard for when a trial justice may grant a new trial)