Preview:

Supreme Court No.2002-720-Appeal. (PC 00-1035) Evan J. Connor v. Paul Bjorklund et al. : : :

Present: Williams, C.J., Flanders, Goldberg, Flaherty and Suttell, JJ. OPINION PER CURIAM. The defendants, Paul Bjorklund (Paul) and Evelyn Bjorklund (Evelyn), appeal from a Superior Court order granting the motion of the plaintiff, Evan J. Connor (plaintiff), for new trial. This case came before the Supreme Court for oral argument on September 24, 2003, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not summarily be decided. After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown, and proceed to decide the appeal at this time. The order of the Superior Court directing a new trial is affirmed. I Facts and Travel This case arises from an automobile accident that occurred in the early morning hours of August 22, 1998. At approximately 12:30 a.m., plaintiff was driving a rented 1998 Chevy Blazer through Kennedy Plaza in Providence, Rhode Island. He testified that while he was driving on Fulton Street, he came to a blinking red light at the corner of Fulton and Exchange Streets. After stopping at the light, plaintiff turned left onto Exchange Street. He testified that, almost

-1-

immediately after turning onto Exchange Street, he came upon a line of cars that were stopped at a red light. As he was coming to a stop behind the line of cars, the car that Paul was driving struck plaintiff's car from behind. Paul admitted rear-ending plaintiff's car, but also offered his description of the accident. Paul, who was seventeen years old at the time of the accident, was unfamiliar with the intersection. He testified that he, too, was traveling on Fulton Street and had stopped at the blinking red light. He said that Jersey barriers lined the left side of Fulton Street, blocking his view of Exchange Street. While stopped at the blinking light, Paul looked right and then proceeded to turn left onto Exchange Street. As he made the turn, he suddenly saw plaintiff's car stopped five to eight feet in front of him. Although he applied the brakes and attempted to turn to the right, Paul was unable to stop and rear-ended plaintiff's car. According to Paul, there were no cars stopped in front of plaintiff, nor were there any pedestrians crossing the street in front of plaintiff's car. The plaintiff brought suit against defendants in Superior Court.1 A two-day jury trial commenced on June 11, 2002. The plaintiff and Paul were the only two witnesses to testify at trial. After both parties rested, the trial justice instructed the jury on comparative negligence. The jury returned a verdict for defendants, finding that Paul bore no responsibility for the rearend collision. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion for new trial, which the trial justice granted. The defendants timely appealed.

1

Evelyn is Paul's grandmother and the owner of the car that Paul was driving. The plaintiff named Evelyn as a defendant because she owned the car. -2-

II New Trial Motion This Court will not disturb a trial justice's decision to grant or deny a motion for new trial unless he or she has overlooked material evidence or is otherwise clearly wrong. Skene v. Beland, 824 A.2d 489, 493 (R.I. 2003). When ruling on a motion for new trial, the trial justice acts as a "superjuror" and conducts an independent review of the evidence presented to the jury. Id. In doing so, the justice properly assesses the credibility of witnesses, weighs the evidence and exercises his or her independent judgment to ultimately grant or deny the motion. Id. The jury's verdict should not be disturbed if the evidence is evenly balanced or if reasonable minds could reach different verdicts. Id. The trial justice may grant a new trial, however, if "`the verdict is against the preponderance of the evidence and thereby fails to either do justice to the parties or respond to the merits of the controversy.'" Perkins v. City of Providence, 782 A.2d 655, 656 (R.I. 2001) (per curiam) (quoting Kurczy v. St. Joseph Veterans Association, Inc., 713 A.2d 766, 770 (R.I. 1998)). The defendants argue that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict and, therefore, the trial justice should not have ordered a new trial. According to defendants, the jury was justified in accepting Paul's description of the accident and finding in their favor. The trial justice, however, disagreed. This Court has described the legal duty imposed on drivers within this state. A motorist approaching an intersection has a duty to observe "the traffic and general situation at or in the vicinity of the intersection. He [or she] must look in the careful and efficient manner in which a [person] of ordinary prudence in like circumstances would look in order to ascertain the existing conditions for his guidance." Hefner v. Distel, 813 A.2d 66, 70 (R.I. 2003) (quoting Dembicer v. Pawtucket Cabinet & Builders Finish Co., 58 R.I. 451, 456, 193 A. 622, 625 (1937)). Further,

-3-

"[n]o person shall start a vehicle which is stopped * * * unless and until the movement can be made with reasonable safety." G.L. 1956

Download 02-0720.pdf

Rhode Island Law