Riley v. Wilson Concrete Co., 54345
| Citation | 184 N.W.2d 689 |
| Decision Date | 11 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 54345,54345 |
| Parties | William J. RILEY, Appellant, v. WILSON CONCRETE COMPANY and Joseph E. Kessler, Appellees. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
Reynoldson, Reynoldson, Brown & Van Werden, Osceola, for appellant.
Johnson, Stuart, Tinley & Peters, Council Bluffs, for appellees.
Plaintiff's action is for personal injury and property damage growing out of a collision involving two semi-trailer trucks going in opposite directions. The trucks met on a curve, the trailers sideswiped each other and the accident occurred. Jury trial resulted in verdict for plaintiff. The court sustained defendants' motion for new trial and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded for reinstatement of verdict.
In ruling upon a motion for new trial, broad but not unlimited discretion is vested in the trial court and we are slower to interfere with the grant of a new trial than with its denial. Rule 344(f)(3)(4), Rules of Civil Procedure. Erickson v. Thompson, 257 Iowa 781, 791, 135 N.W.2d 107 (1965). We will not disturb the order appealed from unless we can say there was no reasonable ground for the trial court to believe the jury reached an unjust result which may be obviated upon a second trial. Coleman v. Brower Construction Co., 254 Iowa 724, 731, 119 N.W.2d 256 (1963).
However, the discretion is not unlimited. It must have some support in the record. It must not be exercised arbitrarily. Fetters v. City of Des Moines, 260 Iowa 490, 149 N.W.2d 815, 819. When we are convinced the order has no substantial support in the record or was arbitrarily entered it is our duty to reverse the order and reinstate the judgment. Otherwise the party's right to review would be meaningless. Our cases involving motions for new trial which need not be reviewed here, will show we rarely and reluctantly overrule the trial court's decision to grant a new trial. But we do so when we are convinced justice demands such action.
We find no useful purpose will be promoted by detailed examination of the factors in this case that convince us defendant had a fair trial and a just result was reached. Our careful review of the record finds no support for the trial court's grant of a new trial. We conclude the court abused its broad discretion in taking the action of which complaint is made. This conclusion requires reversal with directions to set aside the order granting a new trial, reinstate the verdict and enter judgment thereon.
Reversed and remanded.
All...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Condon Auto Sales & Service, Inc. v. Crick
...must not be exercised arbitrarily and it must have some support in the record. Wilson, 558 N.W.2d at 144; Riley v. Wilson Concrete Co., 184 N.W.2d 689, 690 (Iowa 1971). Generally, we are reluctant to interfere with a jury verdict and give considerable deference to a trial court's decision n......
-
Lappe v. Blocker
...added). See also Smith v. Ullerich, 259 Iowa 797, 145 N.W.2d 1. On this basis we reversed a new trial grant in Riley v. Wilson Concrete Co., 184 N.W.2d 689 (Iowa). In another reversal of a new-trial grant, we said: A trial court has wide discretion in the matter of granting or denying a mot......
-
Stotler v. Lutheran Social Service of Iowa
...to a licensed agency for adoption placement. As to 'sound judicial discretion', here held applicable, see Riley v. Wilson Concrete Company, 184 N.W.2d 689, 690 (Iowa 1971); Jones v. Swanger, 167 N.W.2d 702, 704 (Iowa 1969); Black's Law Dictionary at 1567 (rev.4th ed. But this does not alone......
-
Wilson v. IBP, Inc., 95-477
...Constr. Co. v. Langloss, 239 Iowa 346, 355, 30 N.W.2d 320, 324 (1948). It must not be exercised arbitrarily. Riley v. Wilson Concrete Co., 184 N.W.2d 689, 690 (Iowa 1971). For a trial court to grant a new trial in the interest of justice, it must have some support in the record for doing so......