in court; that he had signed these statements without reading them, and that he had never received copies of the same.
It is my judgment that the veracity of plaintiff's testimony in this respect was squarely for the jury's determination. The statements were introduced in evidence, and were made available to the jury during their deliberations.
Plaintiff was twenty-five years of age at the time of accident, and appeared to be a person of limited education, with a most apparent retarded aptitude. A jury, with opportunity to observe and scrutinize the plaintiff and analyze his demeanor and reactions, could very readily accept the honest belief that plaintiff spoke truthfully at the time of trial, and that said statements incorrectly portrayed the facts.
At any rate, it is not the province of the court to substitute its judgment for that of the jury. The choice of conflicting versions of the way the accident happened, the decision as to which witness was telling the truth, the inferences to be drawn from uncontroverted as well as controverted facts, are questions for the jury; Tennant v. Peoria & P.U.R. Co., 321 U.S. 29, 64 S. Ct. 409, 88 L. Ed. 520, and where, as here, the case turns on controverted facts and the credibility of witnesses, the case is peculiarly one for the jury. Washington & Georgetown R. Co. v. McDade, 135 U.S. 554, 572, 10 S. Ct. 1044, 34 L. Ed. 235; Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 318 U.S. 54, 68, 63 S. Ct. 444, 87 L. Ed. 610.
Even if I were to assume that this contradiction between the statements after the accident would justify the expurgation of testimony during trial, the plaintiff's testimony on his alleged examination of the tool after the accident, nevertheless, the jury's verdict as to liability, could well be sustained on testimony developed to show that plaintiff was directed to perform a new mechanical operation without any instruction in the use of the tool employed.
The verdict of the jury should be set aside only if so grossly unreasonable as to shock the conscience of the court, or if it clearly manifests that the verdict was a result of mistake, caprice, prejudice, or other improper motive, and not merely because the judge, had he tried the case without a jury, would have made a different award. Foresman v. Pepin, D.C., 71 F.Supp. 772, affirmed 3 Cir., 161 F.2d 872.
I am satisfied that the award was commensurate with the degree of injury and disability evidenced in the record.
There was ample evidence in the case to justify the jury in its finding in favor of the plaintiff. It is my duty to recognize that a court is not free to reweigh the evidence and set aside the jury verdict merely because the jury could have drawn different inferences or conclusions, or because the court regards another result as more reasonable. Tennant v. Peoria & P. U. R. Co., supra; Masterson v. Penna. R. R. Co., 3 Cir., 182 F.2d 793.
Motion for new trial is refused.
An appropriate Order is entered.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.