Summary
In Schulte, Inc. v. Hewitt Grocery Co., 101 Conn. 750, 751, 125 A. 365, we state the conditions as follows: "In setting aside a verdict, the trial judge is acting in the exercise of a legal discretion, and his action will not be disturbed by us unless it clearly appears that the discretion was abused; and in passing upon the question of abuse, great weight should be given to his opinion, and every assumption made in favor of its correctness."
Summary of this case from Maroncelli v. StarkweatherOpinion
Argued June 5th, 1924
Decided June 30th, 1924.
ACTION against the owner and the bailee of a horse, to recover damages caused by the horse in running away while being driven by the servant of the bailee, brought to the District Court of Waterbury and tried to the jury before Peasley J.; verdict for plaintiff to recover $250.10 of the defendants, and from the granting of the defendants' motion to set aside the verdict, the plaintiff appealed. No error.
William T. Keavney, Jr., with whom, on the brief, was John H. Cassidy, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Walter D. Monagan, for the appellees (defendants).
In setting aside a verdict, the trial judge is acting in the exercise of a legal discretion, and his action will not be disturbed by us unless it clearly appears that the discretion was abused; and in passing upon the question of abuse, great weight should be given to his opinion, and every assumption made in favor of its correctness. Robinson v. Backes, 91 Conn. 457, 460, 99 A. 1057; Roma v. Thames River Specialties Co., 90 Conn. 18, 96 A. 169.
A careful examination of the evidence presented on the trial discloses that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling in substance that the jury could not reasonably have found the issues presented to them by the pleadings in favor of the plaintiff.