Garrett v. Puckett

• Decision Date: 27 March 1972
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Parties: Virgil GARRETT, Appellant, v. Robert J. PUCKETT, Appellee. No 5--5812.

Page 48

478 S.W.2d 48

252 Ark. 233

Virgil GARRETT, Appellant, v. Robert J. PUCKETT, Appellee.

No 5--5812.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 27, 1972.

Cockrill, Laser, McGehee, Sharp & Boswell, Little Rock, for appellant.

W. M. Herndon and Frank J. Gamble, III, North Little Rock, for appellee.

JONES, Justice.

Robert Puckett and Virgil Garrett were driving their respective pickup trucks in the same direction and in the same traffic lane on Asher Avenue in the City of Little Rock. Garrett was behind Puckett and when Puckett stopped to permit a vehicle to turn from the street in front of him, Garrett's vehicle collided with the rear of Puckett's vehicle.

Puckett sued Garrett in the Pulaski County Circuit Court for personal injury and property damage, and Garrett answered with a general denial and a counterclaim for damage to his pickup truck. Both parties alleged the usual acts of negligence on the part of the other and a jury trial resulted in a verdict for Garrett on Puckett's complaint, and for Puckett on Garrett's counterclaim and a judgment was entered on the verdict. Puckett filed a motion to set aside the judgment and for a new trial and the motion was granted by the trial court. Garrett has appealed to this court contending that,

'The trial court erred in setting aside the jury verdict and ordering a new trial.'

At the trial, the parties offered conflicting evidence as to the cause of the collision; Puckett's evidence tending to prove that Garrett was following too close and too fast without paying attention to what he was doing, and Garrett's evidence tending to prove that Puckett stopped without signal or warning in violation of law. In setting aside the verdict of the jury and the judgment thereon, the trial court found that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the evidence and without substantial evidence to support it.

The statute provides for the granting of a new trial when the verdict or decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 27--1901 (Repl.1962). Upon motion for a new trial, the trial court has a duty to review the verdict of the jury rendered on conflicting evidence (Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Stephens, 192 Ark. 115, 90 S.W.2d 978), and the trial judge has a duty to set aside a jury verdict when he finds it to be against the preponderance of the evidence. Stanley v. Calico Rock Ice & Electric Co., 212 Ark. 385, 205 S.W.2d 841; Houston v. Adams, 239 Ark. 346, 389 S.W.2d 872. It is equally well settled that we only reverse the ruling of the trial judge in setting aside a verdict he finds to be against the preponderance of the evidence when we find that the trial judge has abused his discretion. Houston v. Adams, supra; Farmer v. Smith, 227 Ark. 638, 300 S.W.2d 937; Worth James Construction Co. v. Fulk, 241 Ark. 444, 409 S.W.2d 320; Bowman v. Gabel, 243 Ark. 728, 421 S.W.2d 898; U.S.F. & G. Co. v. Hagan, 246 Ark. 629, 439 S.W.2d 915.

A trial judge has the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as he hears their testimony before a jury, whereas we must read their testimony from the printed page. Consequently, we do not pass upon the weight of the evidence in determining whether a trial judge has abused...