Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Meyer v. Bradley
Citations: 245 Ark. 574; 433 S.W.2d 160; 1968 Ark. LEXIS 1244Docket: 5-4647
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; November 4, 1968; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Appellant Meyer argues that the trial court erred in granting appellee Bradley a new trial, asserting that the jury's verdict was justified by the evidence presented. The court relied on Ark. Stat. Ann. 27-1901, which allows a new trial if a verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence. Meyer asserts that the evidence overwhelmingly supported a jury verdict denying recovery for either party. The incident in question involved an automobile collision at an uncontrolled intersection in North Little Rock, where Meyer, driving south, accelerated through the intersection without reducing speed, despite being unfamiliar with the area. He claimed he did not see Bradley's vehicle until after the collision, although he acknowledged having a clear view up to 100 feet to his right. Meyer approached the intersection at 30-35 mph and never applied his brakes. Conversely, Bradley, who approached at 20-25 mph, saw Meyer’s vehicle when it was three to four car lengths away and attempted to brake, skidding into the intersection. The trial judge likely concluded that Meyer’s actions—failing to yield the right-of-way at a partially obstructed intersection while accelerating—demonstrated greater negligence than any potential negligence by Bradley for not slowing down. The judge may have found Meyer's testimony regarding his observation of the intersection unconvincing, given his failure to see Bradley's vehicle prior to the impact. Appellant contends that the Meyer vehicle's movement into a porch was influenced solely by the speed of Bradley’s vehicle, which skidded 40 feet before the collision, without acknowledging that Meyer did not apply his brakes. The trial judge's authority to supervise jury verdicts allows for setting aside a verdict due to jury errors, and his evaluation of evidence is given great deference unless there is clear abuse of discretion. Appellant's arguments for reversal include: (1) the absence of significant testimonial conflict, with only inferential issues remaining; (2) a precedent case, Missouri Pac. R.R. Co. v. Brewer, where a new trial was deemed an abuse of discretion; and (3) a call for reevaluation of established rules. The court notes that drawing inferences from testimony is critical in assessing evidence sufficiency. It emphasizes that neither party's testimony on liability was undisputed or uncontradicted. The court distinguishes this case from Missouri Pacific v. Brewer, where the trial judge disregarded evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claims and did not justify the new trial based on the overall evidence. In contrast, no such failure occurred in this case, leading the court to affirm the judgment based on established precedents.