Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> Sacramento Injury Lawyer Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Personal Injury Law
: Sacramento Injury Lawyer BlogAfter Vicious Dog Attack Sacramento Woman Sues To Recover For Injuries, Part 7 of 8
By Moseley Collins, Esq.
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this dog bite/personal injury case and its proceedings.)
B. Verdict Or Other Decision Against The Law (CCP 657(6)
A motion for new trial may be granted on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision against the law. (CCP 657(6).)
In jury trials, each party in fact has two hearings, one before the jury and the other before the court as a thirteenth juror. Norden v. Hartman (1952) 111 CA2d 751, 758. As explained by one court: In weighing and evaluating the evidence, the court is a trier of fact and is not bound by factual resolutions made by the jury. The court may grant a new trial even though there is sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict on appeal, so long as the court determines the weight of the evidence is against the verdict. Candido v. Huitt (1984) 151 CA3d 918, 923. It is the trial judge's responsibility on motion for new trial to determine the weight of the evidence: A new trial shall not be granted upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision... unless after weighing the evidence the court is convinced from the entire record, including reasonable inferences therefrom, that the court or jury clearly should have reached a different verdict or decision. (CCP 657.)
In this vicious dog bite case, based upon all of the testimony offered by the plaintiff, including, but not limited to, the inconsistent testimony of Topp and Cantor, coupled with the accuracy of the animal control officer's testimony, the jury clearly should have reached a different verdict.
This includes the power to consider the credibility of witnesses and to draw reasonable inferences contrary to those drawn by the jury. Valdez v. J.D. Diffenbaugh Co. (1975) 51 CA3d 494, 512; Fountain Valley Chateu Blanc Homeowner's Ass'n v. Department of Veterans Affairs (1998) 67 CA4th 743, 751. New trial motions allow judges to disbelieve witnesses, reweigh evidence and draw reasonable inferences contrary to that of the jury.
Full post as published by Sacramento Injury Lawyer Blog on November 03, 2009 (boomark / email).
Workers Compensation Overview
Federal laws that cover workplace injuries
Bextra Product Recall
Find a Bextra Lawyer
Bextra Injury Risks
Bextra Increases Risk of Fatal Heart Attack
Amazon
Teen Sues over Lost Homework
Exploding iPod Touch
Mother of Injured Boy Sues Apple
Victim of Sexual Attack Awarded $1.4 Million
Victim of Sexual Attack Awarded $1.5 Million
Smokeless Tobacco Increases Risk of Stroke and Heart Attack
Smokeless Tobacco Increases Risk of Stroke and Heart Attack
Workplace Injuries
Packaging Concepts Limited must pay undisclosed settlement for employees' injuries.
Oscar Winner Sues Production Company
Ascendant pays Kevin Costner undisclosed amount in settlement.

Community Heroes in Blythe Save Dog Bite Victim From Vicious Attack
Woman Sues Wal-Mart for Nutria Attack
Fatal California Dog Attack: Man Dies After Being Attacked by Loose Pack of Dogs
Sonoma County Woman Gets $1 million Settlement in Vicious Dog Bite Case
OFFICER DOWN- Sacramento CA. www.privateofficer.com








