Cooper v. Peturis
Cooper v. Peturis
Opinion
This appeal is from a denial of plaintiff Cooper's motion for new trial on the ground that the jury verdict was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. We have carefully reviewed the record and do not agree with plaintiff that the verdict is without support. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Plaintiff, in alternative counts, claimed that defendant Peturis had damaged his soybean crop while aerially spraying a herbicide, a chemical known commercially as Banvel, upon property which adjoined his land. The trial court granted defendant's motion for a directed verdict on plaintiff's wantonness count, and submitted the case to the jury upon plaintiff's negligence count. The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant. The denial of plaintiff's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or, in the alternative, for a new trial, is the basis of this appeal.
Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial because of uncontradicted testimony that defendant was negligent while spraying the chemical Banvel. Even if the testimony were uncontradicted, liability is not thereby created as a matter of law. Guthrie v. McCauley,
No ground of a motion for a new trial is more carefully scrutinized or more rigidly limited than that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Trans-South-Rent-A-Car, Inc.v. Wein,
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., and JONES, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Nolan P. Cooper v. Nick Peturis.
- Cited By
- 42 cases
- Status
- Published