{ "id": 9080574, "name": "JOYCE ANN ROARY v. PAUL MAURICE BOLTON and VALERIE ALIESA HOOD", "name_abbreviation": "Roary v. Bolton", "decision_date": "2002-05-07", "docket_number": "No. COA01-842", "first_page": "193", "last_page": "196", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "150 N.C. App. 193" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "535 S.E.2d 77", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "80", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "139 N.C. App. 756", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9497779 ], "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/139/0756-01" ] }, { "cite": "361 S.E.2d 921", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "where the trial court's grant of new trial in negligence case was upheld when jury found for defendant, who presented no evidence, in face of plaintiffs evidence as to her injuries" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "87 N.C. App. 591", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8358787 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "where the trial court's grant of new trial in negligence case was upheld when jury found for defendant, who presented no evidence, in face of plaintiffs evidence as to her injuries" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/87/0591-01" ] }, { "cite": "290 S.E.2d 599", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "305 N.C. 478", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571152 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/305/0478-01" ] }, { "cite": "327 S.E.2d 647", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "74 N.C. App. 133", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523351 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/74/0133-01" ] }, { "cite": "332 S.E.2d 51", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "314 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4696910 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/314/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "324 S.E.2d 829", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "833" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "312 N.C. 770", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4755941 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "777" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/312/0770-01" ] }, { "cite": "500 S.E.2d 84", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "quoting White v. White, 312 N.C. 770, 777, 324 S.E.2d 829, 833 (1985)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "347 N.C. 670", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 551143, 551390, 551342, 551375 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "quoting White v. White, 312 N.C. 770, 777, 324 S.E.2d 829, 833 (1985)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/347/0670-01", "/nc/347/0670-02", "/nc/347/0670-03", "/nc/347/0670-04" ] }, { "cite": "493 S.E.2d 797", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "802" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "128 N.C. App. 101", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11652448 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "109" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/128/0101-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 476, "char_count": 8221, "ocr_confidence": 0.756, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.929341395886562e-08, "percentile": 0.42043648104580617 }, "sha256": "80d4899f7264f85e9eeb9464ad0394e21b66581037f470015b7affc0959ba183", "simhash": "1:877b803e776cb4f5", "word_count": 1359 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:52:10.836930+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges MARTIN and TYSON concur." ], "parties": [ "JOYCE ANN ROARY v. PAUL MAURICE BOLTON and VALERIE ALIESA HOOD" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "THOMAS, Judge.\nDefendants, Paul M. Bolton and Valerie A. Hood, appeal the trial court\u2019s order for a new trial on plaintiff\u2019s negligence claim after the jury had returned a verdict in their favor. For the reasons discussed herein, we find no error.\nThe facts are as follows: Plaintiff, Joyce Ann Roary, was a passenger on a motorcycle operated by Bolton and owned by Hood. During the ride, Bolton failed to negotiate a curve and crashed the motorcycle. Plaintiff sustained injuries to her neck, back, and legs.\nRoary filed a complaint for damages against defendants based on negligence. Defendants answered and alleged assumption of risk and contributory negligence. The jury returned a verdict for defendants but then the trial court, stating that \u201cthe Jury\u2019s verdict in the trial of this matter was contrary to the overwhelming evidence of negligence presented by Plaintiff in the trial of this case,\u201d granted Roary\u2019s motion for a new trial.\nDefendants moved for relief from the order allowing the new trial. Their motion was denied.\nBy defendants\u2019 first assignment of error, they argue the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Roary\u2019s motion for a new trial after the jury returned a verdict in their favor. We disagree.\n\u201cAn abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court\u2019s ruling \u2018is so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.\u2019 \u201d Chicora Country Club, Inc. v. Town of Erwin, 128 N.C. App. 101, 109, 493 S.E.2d 797, 802 (1997), disc. review denied, 347 N.C. 670, 500 S.E.2d 84 (1998) (quoting White v. White, 312 N.C. 770, 777, 324 S.E.2d 829, 833 (1985)).\nPursuant to Rule 59 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, trial judges may grant a motion for a new trial under certain circumstances. In the instant case, the trial court based awarding the new trial on two grounds: (1) manifest disregard by the jury of the instructions of the court; and (2) the verdict was contrary to law. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rules 59(a)(5) and (7) (1999). Granting a motion for a new trial under Rule 59 is directed to the discretion of the trial court. Penley v. Penley, 314 N.C. 1, 332 S.E.2d 51 (1985). The trial court\u2019s ruling will thus not be disturbed upon appeal without a finding of abuse of discretion. State ex rel. Gilchrist v. Cogdill, 74 N.C. App. 133, 327 S.E.2d 647 (1985). We turn now to a consideration of the record to determine if it affirmatively demonstrates a manifest abuse of discretion. See Worthington v. Bynum, 305 N.C. 478, 290 S.E.2d 599 (1982).\nRoary presented evidence that Officer W.J. Wiktorek of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department estimated Bolton to be operating the motorcycle at 80 m.p.h. in a 45 m.p.h. speed zone when he first saw him. Wiktorek followed the motorcycle, although he was not \u201cin pursuit.\u201d He estimated that Bolton\u2019s speed eventually reached 120 m.p.h. After losing sight of the motorcycle, Wiktorek continued down the street and spotted Roary, bleeding, in the middle of the road, fifty feet from the wrecked motorcycle. Bolton was found in a ditch approximately fifteen feet from Roary.\nWiktorek asked Bolton what had happened. Bolton\u2019s reply was simply that \u201cthe weight shifted.\u201d Wiktorek estimated the motorcycle was doing 90 m.p.h. when it crashed, but he did not issue any citations.\nRoary testified that while she was riding with Bolton, he began to speed up and she asked him why he was speeding. When he replied, \u201cDon\u2019t worry about it, don\u2019t worry about it,\u201d Roary became afraid and held on tightly. Bolton continued to speed and ran a red light. With a curve then looming ahead, Bolton slowed down, but the motorcycle tipped over and both Roary and Bolton were dragged with it.\nRoary also testified at length about her injuries, which included scarring and back pain. The jury watched a videotaped deposition of Dr. James Sherrer, a plastic surgeon, and heard the testimony of Dr. William Carlyle, a chiropractor, as to Roary\u2019s injuries and treatment. She also presented evidence of actual and prospective medical bills totaling $8,545 and lost wages of approximately $3,400.\nAt the close of Roary\u2019s evidence, defendants, who did not put on evidence, moved for a directed verdict. The trial court denied the motion. Defendants then requested a jury instruction on contributory negligence. The trial judge stated the \u201cevidence [did] not warrant the submission of an issue of contributory negligencef.]\u201d The trial judge instructed the jury on negligence, proximate cause, and damages. In the face of the uncontroverted evidence of negligence, though, the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants.\nThe issues, as they were presented to the jury, and the jury\u2019s responses were:\n1. Was the Plaintiff injured by the negligence of the Defendant?\nANSWER: No\n2. What amount of damages is the Plaintiff entitled to recover for her personal injuries?\nANSWER:_[Not Answered]\nIn reviewing this record, we find no manifest abuse of discretion. The trial court had ample grounds on which to base its ruling. See Garrison v. Garrison, 87 N.C. App. 591, 361 S.E.2d 921 (1987) (where the trial court\u2019s grant of new trial in negligence case was upheld when jury found for defendant, who presented no evidence, in face of plaintiffs evidence as to her injuries). Consequently, the decision of the trial court will not be disturbed and we reject defendants\u2019 argument.\nBy defendants\u2019 second assignment of error, they argue the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion for relief from the order allowing the new trial. Because we have held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the new trial, we reject this assignment of error as well.\nBy defendants\u2019 third assignment of error, they contend: (1) the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to allow their request for a jury instruction on contributory negligence; and (2) that this Court should direct the trial court to instruct the jury on contributory negligence on remand. We disagree.\nHere, we affirm the trial court\u2019s order for a new trial. Therefore, it is not necessary or appropriate for us to address the first part of this assignment of error. Additionally, in Burchette v. Lynch, 139 N.C. App. 756, 535 S.E.2d 77 (2000), this Court held that:\nWhen a trial court orders a new trial, \u201cthe case remainfs] on the civil issue docket for trial de novo, unaffected by rulings made therein during the [original] trial[.]\u201d ... [0]n retrial, [a] defendant would not be \u201cbound by the evidence presented at the former trial. Whether [his] evidence at the new trial will support [a motion for directed verdict] cannot now be decided.\u201d\nId. at 760-61, 535 S.E.2d at 80 (citations omitted). We therefore reject defendants\u2019 argument.\nNO ERROR.\nJudges MARTIN and TYSON concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "THOMAS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Downer, Walters & Mitchener, PA, by Stephen W. Kearney and Joseph H. Downer for plaintiff-appellee.", "Hedrick, Eatman, Gardner & Kincheloe, LLP, by Allen C. Smith for defendants-appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JOYCE ANN ROARY v. PAUL MAURICE BOLTON and VALERIE ALIESA HOOD\nNo. COA01-842\n(Filed 7 May 2002)\n1. Trials\u2014 motion for new trial \u2014 negligence\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting plaintiff a new trial under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 59 in a negligence action after the jury had returned a verdict in favor of defendants in light of plaintiff\u2019s uncontroverted evidence of negligence by defendants.\n2. Trials\u2014 motion for new trial \u2014 motion for relief from order \u2014 negligence\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendants\u2019 motion for relief from the trial court\u2019s order granting a new trial on plaintiff\u2019s negligence claim, because the Court of Appeals already concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the new trial.\n3. Negligence\u2014 contributory \u2014 request for jury instruction\nAlthough defendants contend the trial court erred in a negligence case by refusing to allow defendants\u2019 request for a jury instruction on contributory negligence, it is unnecessary to address this assignment of error since the trial court ordered a new trial.\nAppeal by defendants from judgment entered 20 October 2000 by Judge Hollis M. Owens, Jr. in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 March 2002.\nDowner, Walters & Mitchener, PA, by Stephen W. Kearney and Joseph H. Downer for plaintiff-appellee.\nHedrick, Eatman, Gardner & Kincheloe, LLP, by Allen C. Smith for defendants-appellants." }, "file_name": "0193-01", "first_page_order": 223, "last_page_order": 226 }