Summary: Following jury verdict in favor of the defendant, plaintiff sought a new trial. As the basis for new trial, plaintiff argued that the verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence. The court disagreed and declined to substitute its judgment for that of the jury under the circumstances. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict that the plaintiff's injuries were not causally related to the accident.

Case Name: Senger v. Stock
Case Number: A3-99-31
Docket Number: 35
Date Filed: 10/20/00
Nature of Suit: 350

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

Joseph Senger,

Plaintiff,

-vs-

Thomas Stock,

Defendant.

 )
)
)
)
) Case No. A3-99-31
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On February 3, 1997, plaintiff Joseph Senger ("Senger") and defendant Thomas Stock ("Stock") were involved in an automobile accident which occurred at the intersection of 45th Street Southwest and 13th Avenue South in Fargo, North Dakota. Senger commenced this action on March 10, 1999, alleging he suffered bodily injuries as a result of the accident. Stock admitted responsibility for the accident and injuries proximately caused thereby. However, Stock contended at trial that the plaintiff's injuries to his low back were not proximately caused by the accident, but rather were sustained in the course of his employment subsequent to the date of the accident.

The case was tried to a jury of eight members beginning on May 8, 2000 and continuing through May 11, 2000. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Stock, finding that Senger did not sustain a serious injury as a proximate cause of the accident. The court entered judgment dismissing the case in accordance with the jury verdict on May 25, 2000. On June 9, 2000 Senger filed a Motion for New Trial (Doc. #32) pursuant to Rule 59 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In his motion for new trial plaintiff asserts that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, stating "Joseph Senger presented medical evidence to the jury which was so overwhelming as to require this court to grant a new trial." Brief in Support of Motion for New Trial, at 6. Stock opposed the motion (Doc. #34), asserting "Senger fails to establish that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict." Defendant's Brief Opposing Motion for New Trial, at 1.

"In ruling upon a new trial motion, a district court may set aside a jury verdict if the court has determined that the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or that the granting of a new trial is necessary to prevent injustice." Crowley Beverage Company v. Miller Brewing Company, 862 F.2d 688 , 690 (8th Cir. 1988). See also VanSteenburgh v. Rival Company, 171 F.3d 1155, 1160 (8th Cir. 1999) ("A new trial is appropriate if the verdict is against the weight of the evidence and if allowing it to stand would result in a miscarriage of justice"). In addressing a motion for new trial the court may rely on its own recollection and evaluation of the evidence while considering whether a verdict is against the weight of the evidence. White v. Pence, 961 F.2d 776, 780 (8th Cir. 1992). Further, the court is entitled to interpret the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses, "but it may not usurp the role of the jury by granting a new trial simply because it believes other inferences and conclusions are more reasonable." VanSteenburgh, 171 F.3d at 1160. See also Beckman v. Mayo Foundation, 804 F.2d 435, 439 (8th Cir. 1996) ("The district court has discretion to grant or deny a new trial based on its reading of the evidence."). "A district court's denial of a motion for a new trial based on the sufficiency of the evidence is 'virtually unassailable on appeal' and will be disturbed only upon a finding of a clear abuse of discretion." Stephens v. Rheem Manufacturing Company, 220 F.3d 882, 885 (8th Cir. 2000).

In this case the plaintiff invites the court to substitute its judgment for that of the jury. Based upon a review of the evidence and its recollection of the testimony at trial, this court declines the invitation. The court finds that the causal connection between the automobile accident and the complaints of low back pain necessitating surgery is not so "clear cut" as proposed by the plaintiff. In fact, there are several instances in the record which favor the jury verdict. First, the plaintiff himself testified that he did not complain of low back pain immediately after the accident. This fact is noted in the emergency room records. In addition, chiropractic treatments sought soon after the accident did not address Senger's lumbar spine. Indeed, plaintiff's chiropractor's notes state "lumbar region good." Further, Senger's Workers Compensation filings are consistent with the jury verdict. Plaintiff's February 1997 filing with the North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau describes his injuries to his "neck-ribs," but not his low back. In May 1997, Senger filed an application for Workers Compensation Benefits as a result of a work incident in which he identifies his "low back" as the injured body part. The application also provides that Senger has not had any "prior problems or injuries to that part of the body." Again in July 1997, Senger told his physician about the two different incidences giving rise to his neck, and later low back, injuries. Finally, in a report to his supervisor Senger again distinguished the two injuries, identifying the low back pain as starting in May 1997 as a result of a work incident.

In addition to the medical records, there is conflicting testimony regarding the causal relationship between the accident and Senger's low back pain. Plaintiff's witnesses, Dr. Nabwangu and Dr. Ray, testified that the low back pain was caused by the accident and the May incident merely exacerbated a "pre-existing" condition. Defendant's expert, Dr. Gadan, stated there appeared to be no relationship between the low back injury and the automobile accident, identifying the lack of medical evidence to support his opinion. It is within the province of the jury to weigh the credibility of the witnesses and arrive at a verdict. Based on the foregoing, this court finds there is sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict in favor of the defendant. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED THAT plaintiff Joseph Senger's Motion for New Trial (Doc. #32) is DENIED.

Dated this ____ day of October, 2000.

Karen K. Klein
United States Magistrate Judge