New Trial (N.C.R. Civ. P. 59)
"[A]n appellate court's review of a trial judge's discretionary ruling either granting or denying a motion to set aside a verdict and order a new trial is strictly limited to the determination of whether the record affirmatively demonstrates a manifest abuse of discretion by the judge. Worthington v. Bynum, 305 N.C. 478, 482, 290 S.E.2d 599, 602 (1982).
"[A]n appellate court should not disturb a discretionary Rule 59 order unless it is reasonably convinced by the cold record that the trial judge's ruling probably amounted to a substantial miscarriage of justice. Worthington v. Bynum, 305 N.C. 478, 487, 290 S.E.2d 599, 605 (1982).
"While an order for new trial pursuant to Rule 59 which satisfies the procedural requirements of the Rule may ordinarily be reversed on appeal only in the event of 'a manifest abuse of discretion,' when the trial court grants or denies a new trial 'due to some error of law,' then its decision is fully reviewable. Chiltoski v. Drum, 121 N.C. App. 161, 164, 464 S.E.2d 701, 703 (1995) (quoting Garrison v. Garrison, 87 N.C. App. 591, 594, 361 S.E.2d 921, 923 (1987)), disc. review denied, 343 N.C. 121, 468 S.E.2d 777 (1996).
"Appellate courts thus must utilize the 'abuse of discretion' standard only in those instances where there is no question of 'law or legal inference.' Id. (quoting Seaman v. McQueen, 51 N.C. App. 500, 505, 277 S.E.2d 118, 121 (1981)).