Fox v. Cusick, 91 Nev. 218

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court reviews an order granting a new trial after a jury verdict for the defendant in an automobile-accident personal-injury action. The court holds that the trial court could not substitute its view of the evidence for the jury's where the verdict was not legally impossible and no plain error or manifest injustice was shown. The order granting a new trial is reversed, and the jury verdict is reinstated.

Holdings

1. Under Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 59 as amended, a trial court may not order a new trial solely because it views the evidence differently from the jury when the losing party is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A new trial may nevertheless be sustained upon a showing of plain error or manifest injustice.
2. The evidence did not compel a finding for the Cusicks on proximate cause or compensable injury. Proximate cause, including the cause of claimed damages, was for the jury, and the jury could determine that an accident occurred without causing compensable injury.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court properly granted a new trial because the jury's verdict for Fox was against the weight of the evidence.
2. Whether the evidence compelled a finding that Fox proximately caused compensable personal injuries to the Cusicks.

Disposition

reversed