Reginald S. Grimmett v. William D. and Kerry L. Smith, 238 W. Va. 54

Background

Adjacent landowners: Reginald Grimmett developed an 11-acre mobile-home community (Skyview Acres); William and Kerry Smith owned neighboring property with a half-acre pond.
During construction (trail, amphitheater), DEP cited Grimmett for several erosion-control violations; Grimmett corrected them and DEP terminated his construction permit after finding the site stabilized.
The Smiths sued alleging Grimmett’s development caused sediment to enter and accumulate in their pond. Trial lasted three days; plaintiffs presented DEP inspector testimony, neighbor observations, contractor cost estimates, and videos/photos; defendant testified about erosion controls and presented a video showing clear pond water.
The jury found Grimmett not liable on all liability questions (never reached damages). The Smiths moved for a new trial; the circuit court granted it, concluding the verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence.
Grimmett appealed; the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed, concluding the trial record contained sufficient conflicting evidence to support the jury verdict and the trial court improperly substituted its judgment for the jury’s.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused discretion by granting a new trial after the jury returned a verdict for defendant	Smiths: verdict was against the clear weight of evidence; DEP violations and testimony show Grimmett caused sediment to Pond	Grimmett: substantial conflicting evidence supported verdict (multiple runoff sources, unclear amount of sediment attributable to him)	Reversed: trial court abused discretion; jury verdict reinstated
Whether sufficient evidence linked Grimmett’s activity to measurable pond damage	Smiths: DEP findings and videos/photos show sediment traveled from Grimmett’s land into pond	Grimmett: plaintiffs failed to quantify sediment attributable to his work; pond depth never measured; other properties also contributed	Held for Grimmett: evidence was conflicting and insufficiently probative to overturn jury decision
Proper role of trial court on Rule 59 motion (weighing evidence vs. deference to jury)	Smiths: trial court may weigh credibility and grant new trial when verdict is against clear weight of evidence	Grimmett: trial court cannot substitute its view where evidence is conflicting and jury reasonably resolved disputes	Held: trial court misapplied discretion; jury role paramount when evidence conflicts
Standard for appellate review of new-trial grants	Smiths: circuit court’s decision entitled to deference	Grimmett: appellate court should reverse if trial court abused discretion or acted on erroneous view of law	Held: new-trial grants are highly deferential but reversible when lower court intrudes on jury’s fact-finding without justification

Key Cases Cited

In re State Pub. Bldg. Asbestos Litig., 193 W.Va. 119 (1994) (trial court may weigh evidence when granting new trial under Rule 59)
Sanders v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 159 W.Va. 621 (1976) (trial court’s new-trial ruling entitled to great respect and weight)
Estep v. Mike Ferrell Ford Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 223 W.Va. 209 (2008) (same principle of deference to trial court on new-trial motions)
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Smith, 229 W.Va. 316 (2012) (standards for reviewing new-trial orders)
Bronson v. Riffe, 148 W.Va. 362 (1964) (reinstatement of jury verdict where trial court improperly set it aside)
French v. Sinkford, 132 W.Va. 66 (1948) (jury resolves conflicts in evidence)
Skeen v. C & G Corp., 155 W.Va. 547 (1971) (exclusive province of jury to weigh conflicting witness testimony)
Laslo v. Griffith, 143 W.Va. 469 (1958) (verdict will not be set aside unless plainly contrary to weight of evidence)
Orr v. Crowder, 173 W.Va. 335 (1983) (methodology for assessing sufficiency of evidence supporting a jury verdict)
McNeely v. Frich, 187 W.Va. 26 (1992) (reinstating jury verdict where trial court improperly intruded on jury role)