Darlene Owens v. Kenneth W. Kelly

(1) The plaintiff below-appellant, Darlene Owens, appeals from (a)
a Superior Court judgment based upon a jury verdict in favor of the
defendant below-appellee, and (b) the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's
motion for a new trial, in this action to recover damages for personal
injuries. We find no merit to the appeal and, accordingly, affirm.

(2) The Superior Court action arose out of an automobile collision
on U.S. Route 13 in Kent County, Delaware. The plaintiff (together with
three friends) was a passenger in a minivan being operated by another friend,

2
James Green. At the time of the collision, Green was driving in a northerly
direction in the right hand lane on U.S. 13. The defendant was attempting to
cross Route 13 on a secondary road coming from the west. The defendant
first crossed the southbound right-of-way and stopped his car in the median.
According to the defendant's testimony, he then looked both ways before
entering the northbound right-of-way and did not see the Green vehicle
approaching. The defendant also testified that as he started across the
median, his car stalled momentarily (an event that had never occurred
before) and then proceeded to cross, only to be struck seconds later by the
Green vehicle.

(3) At the trial, Green testified that he did not see the defendant's
car until he was only a few feet away from impact, and that before the
impact he (Green) had been focusing his eyes directly on what was in front
of him, in "tunnel vision." As noted, the jury found in favor of the
defendant and the plaintiff moved for a new trial, which the trial court
denied.

(4) The plaintiff advances two arguments on appeal. First, she
argues that no reasonable jury could have returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
Second, she argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the
plaintiff's motion for a new trial. Neither argument is supported by the
record.

3

(5) In reviewing the grant or denial of a new trial, this Court
reviews for abuse of discretion.1 Where, as here, the motion for a new trial
is based solely on the weight of the evidence, this Court is bound by the jury
verdict unless it is "at least against the great weight of the evidence.2 In this
case the evidence was sufficient to support a jury finding that the plaintiff
failed to prove that the accident was caused by the defendant's negligence.
Based on the evidence, the jury could have found that but for the
unforeseeable stalling of the defendant's car (which occurred through no
fault of the defendant), the collision would not have occurred. The jury
could also have found that the accident was caused by the plaintiff's driver,
Green, because it was dark and Green was focused solely on the lane on
which he was driving, but was not observing what was going on around him,
including the intersecting right-of-way.

(6) Nor is there merit to the plaintiff's claim that the trial court
abused its discretion in denying her motion for a new trial. Although the
plaintiff asserts that the verdict was "against the great weight of the
evidence,"3 she has not demonstrated that proposition. The plaintiff
contends that the trial court did not, in fact, weigh the evidence, but instead

1 James v. Glazer, 570 A.2d 1150, 1156 (Del. 1990).

2 Id., quoting Storey v. Camper, 401 A.2d 458, at 465 (Del. 1979).

3
Storey v. Camper, 401 A.2d at 465.

denied the motion because there was "some evidence" to support the verdict,
thereby erroneously applying a "summary judgment" standard. In fact, the
plaintiff argues, the weight of the evidence demonstrated negligence on the
defendant's part.

(7) This argument, however ignores the trial court's ruling that:
A reasonable jury could have determined that but for the
unforeseen event of stalling, the defendant could have had time
to safely enter the roadway…[T]he jury could have reasonably
found that, but for the stalling episode, the collision would not
have occurred. Because there was no evidence to suggest that
the defendant knew or should have known his vehicle would
stall in this fashion, it is reasonable that the jury concluded that
the defendant was not negligent.4
The appellant does not come to grips with this reasoning in her brief, other
than to assert (but without demonstrating in a reasoned way) that the trial
court's reasoning is flawed.