Opinion
Docket No. 338, 1998.
February 24, 1999.
Appeal from Superior Court, New Castle County, CA 93C-04-024.
AFFIRMED.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
ELSIE B. WOLHAR and ROBERT WOLHAR, Plaintiffs Below-Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant Below-Appellee. No. 338, 1998. In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: February 9, 1999. Decided: February 24, 1999.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, C.A. No. 93C-04-024.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
ORDER
This 24th day of February, it appears to the Court that:
1) This is a direct appeal, following a jury trial, from the Superior Court's entry of judgment in favor of the defendant-appellee, General Motors Corporation ("General Motors"). The plaintiff-appellants, Elsie B. Wolhar and Robert Wolhar ("appellants"), also appeal from the Superior Court's denial of their motion for a new trial.
2) In this appeal, the appellants allege that: first, the Superior Court erred in improperly submitting special interrogatories which inaccurately stated the issues to be determined by the jury; second, the Superior Court erred in submitting special interrogatories and accompanying instructions which are erroneous as a matter of law; third, the Superior Court erred in submitted special interrogatories and accompanying instructions which contained ambiguous and confusing language; fourth, the Superior Court erred in receiving an incomplete verdict and violated its duty to reject such a verdict pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rules 49 and 58; and fifth, the Superior Court erred in not granting a motion for a new trial.
3) The appellants acknowledge that this Court's standard of review with regard to their first four contentions is plain error. Under that standard of review, the error complained of must be so clearly prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant that it jeopardized the fairness and integrity of the trial process. Riggins v. Mauriello, Del. Sur., 603 A.2d 827, 830 (1992). This Court has concluded that the record does not reflect any plain error.
4) Generally, the standard of review of the Superior Court's denial of a motion for a new trial is abuse of discretion. Eustice v. Rupert, Del. Supr., 460 A.2d 507 (1983). If the appeal alleges that the trial court erred as a matter of law in denying a motion for a new trial, however, this Court must first decide if the legal rulings were correct. Strauss v. Biggs, Del. Supr., 525 A.2d 992, 997 (1987).
This Court has concluded that to the extent the errors alleged on appeal are attributed to an abuse of discretion, the record does not support those assertions; and to the extent that the issues raised on appeal are legal, they are controlled by settled Delaware law, which was properly applied. Therefore, this Court has concluded that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland, Justice