JNOV; Waived issue; Motion for a new trial; Great weight of the evidence; Jury instruction; M Civ JI 12.01

The court found no error in the trial court’s conclusion that the motion for a new trial should be denied. And although the trial court erred in denying the requested jury instruction, reversal was not required. Thus, it affirmed “the judgment entered on a jury verdict of no cause of action in favor of defendant.” The case arose from a collision between KB (a minor who was riding a motorbike on a sidewalk) and defendant. Plaintiff (next friend of her son, KB) claimed “that the trial court erred when it denied her motion for a new trial.” She maintained “that the jury’s verdict was against the great weight of the evidence.” Plaintiff cited “defendant’s testimony regarding her eyesight, her awareness of children in the area, and her speed at the time of the incident, as well as testimony that KB was pinned between the vehicle and a brick wall. Although some of defendant’s testimony was inconsistent, defendant’s account of the collision was largely unrefuted. KB’s own testimony also contained inconsistencies regarding how he was freed from under the vehicle and how he returned home.” The court noted that defendant “testified that she was traveling approximately 20 [MPH], was attentive to the presence of children, used her turn signal, and attempted to stop. Conversely, KB acknowledged that he was not paying attention to traffic and had not received training in operating a motorbike.” Given the “record, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the evidence overwhelmingly supported a finding of negligence.” The trial court reasonably held “that the jury’s verdict should not be disturbed, and [thus] did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial.”