Clayton v. Wagnon, 82-28

Decision Date17 May 1982
Docket NumberNo. 82-28,82-28
Citation633 S.W.2d 19,276 Ark. 124
PartiesAlphonso CLAYTON, Appellant, v. C. G. WAGNON, Appellee.
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Laser, Sharp & Huckabay, P. A., Little Rock, for appellant.

Brown, Compton & Prewett by Floyd M. Thomas, Jr., El Dorado, for appellee.

ADKISSON, Chief Justice.

The Union County Circuit Court granted a motion by appellee, Wagnon, for a new trial after finding that the jury verdict for appellant, Clayton, was contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. On appeal, we affirm.

On the evening of April 17, 1980, appellee's daughter, who was driving an MG, and appellant, who was driving a Mercury Marquis, collided at a four-way stop intersection in El Dorado. Wagnon was attempting to make a left turn when the accident occurred.

Wagnon testified that she stopped at the intersection and put on her turn signal; she saw the headlights of a car coming toward her, but since it was not very close and since she knew that the car would have to stop at the intersection, she proceeded into the intersection. She further testified that after the collision appellant admitted to her that he ran the stop sign and told her his brakes had failed.

A witness who was in a car behind Wagnon at the time of the accident testified that the MG stopped at the stop sign but that the other vehicle did not. This witness also stated that after the accident she heard appellant tell Wagnon he was sorry and that he tried his brakes but they did not work. Two other witnesses who came to the scene of the accident immediately after the collision also testified that appellant said his brakes had failed.

Appellant testified that he pulled up to the intersection and stopped. He stated that as he proceeded through the intersection, going no more than ten or 12 miles per hour, Wagnon turned left and they collided. He stated that nothing was wrong with his car, that the brakes were as good as new and that he did not tell anyone that his brakes had failed.

The policeman who investigated the accident testified that appellant said nothing to him about his brakes failing or about any other malfunction of his vehicle. He also testified that to his knowledge there were no eyewitnesses to the accident other than the drivers.

The trial judge, in acting on a motion for a new trial challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, is required by ARCP Rule 59(a)(6), Ark.Stat.Ann., Vol. 3A (Repl.1979) to set aside the jury verdict if it is against the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Fritz v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • August 31, 2005
    ...See Depew, supra; Fields, supra. The trial court is not to substitute its view of the evidence for that of the jury. Clayton v. Wagnon, 276 Ark. 124, 633 S.W.2d 19 (1982). Fritz asks this court to award a new trial on damages only. This cannot be done. Even though the alleged error in this ......
  • Eisner M.D. & Equivision v Fields
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • September 8, 1999
    ...is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Razorback Cab v. Martin, 313 Ark. 445, 856 S.W.2d 2 (1993); Clayton v. Wagnon, 276 Ark. 124, 633 S.W.2d 19 (1982). The test we apply on review of the granting of a motion for a new trial is whether the trial court abused its discretion. ......
  • Ray v. Green
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • October 12, 1992
    ...296 Ark. 212, 752 S.W.2d 758 (1988); Peoples Bank & Trust Co. v. Wallace, 290 Ark. 589, 721 S.W.2d 659 (1986); Clayton v. Wagnon, 276 Ark. 124, 633 S.W.2d 19 (1982). On appeal, our test for reviewing the denial of a motion for new trial is whether there is any substantial evidence to suppor......
  • Harold McLaughlin Reliable Truck Brokers, Inc. v. Cox
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 13, 1996
    ...Further, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the jury when there is basis in the evidence for the award. Clayton v. Wagnon, 276 Ark. 124, 633 S.W.2d 19 (1982). ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT