Hall v. Grimmett, 94-00131

• Decision Date: 17 October 1994
• Docket Number: No. 94-00131,94-00131
• Citation: 318 Ark. 309,885 S.W.2d 297
• Parties: Nola Jean HALL, and Roger Hall, Appellants, v. Sherman Jack GRIMMETT, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 297

885 S.W.2d 297

318 Ark. 309

Nola Jean HALL, and Roger Hall, Appellants, v. Sherman Jack GRIMMETT, Appellee.

No. 94-00131.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Oct. 17, 1994.

Matt Keil, Texarkana, for appellants.

Mickey Buchanan, Ashdown, for appellee.

CORBIN, Justice.

Appellants, Nola Jean Hall and her husband Roger Hall, appeal a judgment of the Sevier County Circuit Court ordering that they take nothing on their claims against appellee, Sherman Jack Grimmett. Mrs. Hall and Mr. Grimmett were involved in an automobile accident on Highway 329 near DeQueen, Arkansas. The Halls sued Mr. Grimmett as a result of the accident, asserting claims of negligence and loss of consortium. The jury returned a general verdict in favor of Mr. Grimmett. As their sole point for reversal, the Halls contend the jury's verdict was against the preponderance of the evidence. We find no error in the judgment and affirm.

Mr. and Mrs. Hall's sole point on appeal is that the jury verdict was against the "great weight and preponderance of the evidence." The Halls did not move for a new trial and this is not an appeal from the denial of a motion for new trial. See ARCP Rule 59(a)(6). It is not necessary to move for a new trial to preserve for appeal any error which could be the basis for granting a new trial. ARCP Rule 59(f). Rule 59 specifically states a motion for new trial may be granted for eight reasons, one of which is where the verdict is clearly contrary to the preponderance of the evidence.

Neither a motion for new trial nor this appeal tests the sufficiency of the evidence to go to the jury and neither is precluded by ARCP Rule 50(e). Yeager v. Roberts, 288 Ark. 156, 702 S.W.2d 793 (1986). However, similar to the test on appeal from a denial of a motion for new trial, the test on this appeal is whether there is substantial evidence to support the jury verdict. See Minerva Enter. Inc. v. Howlett, 308 Ark. 291, 824 S.W.2d 377 (1992).

The Halls argue the jury had to completely disregard all the evidence of negligence in this case in order to find for Mr. Grimmett. They contend the evidence established that Mr. Grimmett was negligent in failing to yield the right of way as he entered the highway from his private driveway and that Mrs. Hall was not negligent in any respect. We find no merit to this argument.

Substantial evidence is evidence of sufficient force and character to compel a conclusion one way or the other with reasonable certainty; it must force the mind to pass beyond suspicion or conjecture. Minerva, 308 Ark. 291, 824 S.W.2d 377. In determining the existence of substantial evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party on whose behalf the judgment was entered and give it its highest probative value, taking into account all reasonable inferences deducible from it. Gipson v. Garrison, 308 Ark. 344, 824 S.W.2d 829 (1992). In reviewing the evidence, the weight and value to be given the testimony of the witnesses is a matter within the exclusive province of the jury. Rathbun v. Ward, 315 Ark. 264, 866 S.W.2d 403 (1993).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Grimmett, we conclude there was substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict. While there may indeed have been conflicting evidence presented in this case, it is up to the jury to resolve the conflicts in the testimony and judge the weight and credibility of all the evidence. Rathbun, 315 Ark. 264, 866 S.W.2d 403. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the jury could have concluded, without speculation, that Mr. Grimmett did not act negligently when he pulled out of his driveway. Mr. Grimmett testified he looked both ways and did...