Leslie Dominguez v. Wilfredo Rosa Otero

Syllabus

The plaintiffs, Leslie and Marie B. Dominguez, appealed from the denial of their motion for a new trial following a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, Wilfredo Rosa Otero. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the trial justice's decision should be reversed because the unrefuted testimony and evidence at trial showed that the defendant was at least partially liable for negligently causing an automobile collision between the vehicles driven by Leslie Dominguez and defendant. The plaintiffs also contended that the trial justice contradicted his own finding that plaintiffs' testimonies were more credible when he ultimately affirmed the jury's verdict. The Supreme Court held that the trial justice did not overlook or misconceive material evidence in concluding that, based on the conflicting evidence at trial, reasonable minds could differ as to whether the defendant was liable. The Court also held that the trial justice conducted the proper analysis for deciding a motion for a new trial. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial justice's denial of the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial.