Coppola v. Harmon, No. 095182 (Nov. 29, 1993)
Opinion of the Court
After review, the court finds that the evidence presented at trial in the instant case, furnished a reasonable basis for that conclusion.
From the facts in evidence, the jury could have found that the plaintiff was negligent when she stopped her automobile in an active lane of traffic, while allowing another vehicle to enter same, without first having checked her rear view mirror for following traffic. While she claimed to have done so at the time and not to have seen defendant's vehicle close behind her, the jury could have disregarded that assertion and found from the evidence, that had she used her rear view mirror as claimed, she would have seen defendant closing behind her and would have realized that stopping, as she did, would cause or aid in causing a collision.
As a second part of her motion, plaintiff requests that an additur be ordered. However, an additur is not to be ordered where the jury's award is reasonable; that is to say, that the award falls somewhere within the uncertain limits of just damages and does not shock the court's sense of justice. Bisgioni [Biagioni] v. Aetna Life Casualty Co.,
Therefore, and in accordance with the foregoing, plaintiff's Amended Motion to Set Aside is denied.
/s/ West, J. WEST, J.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.