Geraldine Mills v. Nathan Reichle , 162 A.3d 617 ( 2017 )

June 5, 2017
Supreme Court
No. 2016-211-Appeal.
(KC 12-583)
Geraldine Mills :
v. :
Nathan Reichle. :
ORDER
In this personal injury case, the plaintiff, Geraldine Mills, appeals from the Superior
Court’s denial of her post-trial motion, following a jury verdict in her favor, in which she
requested a new trial or, in the alternative, an additur. This case came before the Supreme Court
for oral argument on May 3, 2017, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show
cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After a close review
of the record and careful consideration of the parties’ arguments (both written and oral), we are
satisfied that cause has not been shown and that this appeal may be decided at this time.
On May 30, 2012, plaintiff filed a complaint in Kent County Superior Court alleging that,
on October 19, 2009, defendant “negligently operated” his motor vehicle by striking a shopping
cart which then “struck” plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that, as a result, she sustained bodily
injury and emotional distress, as well as incurring substantial medical bills. A jury trial was
subsequently conducted over three days in October of 2015. The jury returned a verdict in
plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $6,500 exclusive of interest.
-1-
On appeal, plaintiff advances numerous contentions with respect to errors which she
asserts were committed by the trial justice. However, the real nub of her appeal is her contention
that the trial justice erred in denying her motion for a new trial.
Our review of a trial justice’s decision on a motion for a new trial is deferential. Martin
v. Lawrence, 79 A.3d 1275, 1283 (R.I. 2013). In ruling on a motion for a new trial, the trial
justice sits “as a superjuror and should review the evidence and exercise his or her independent
judgment in passing upon the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.” Bonn
v. Pepin, 11 A.3d 76, 78 (R.I. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). The trial justice
“undertakes his or her independent appraisal of the evidence in the light of his [or her] charge to
the jury and may set aside a verdict when [his or her] judgment tells [him or her] that it is wrong
because it fails to respond truly to the merits of the controversy and to administer substantial
justice and is against the fair preponderance of the evidence.” Martin, 79 A.3d at 1283 (internal
quotation marks omitted). After conducting that analysis, if “the trial justice concludes that the
evidence is evenly balanced or that reasonable minds could differ on the verdict, she [or he]
should not disturb the jury’s decision.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
In the instant case, the trial justice engaged in a thorough review of the evidence,
detailing the testimony of the majority of the witnesses at trial and referencing the medical
records that were properly entered as exhibits. He then proceeded to review the instruction he
gave to the jury with respect to expert witness testimony. After reviewing the evidence and the
jury instruction, the trial justice found the testimony of the eyewitness to the accident to be
credible. Ultimately, he came to the following conclusion:
“It’s clear that the jury didn’t believe that any of the
treatment that this Plaintiff had beyond the treatment for the first
month or so following this accident was necessitated by her run-in
with the grocery cart. And frankly, I can’t fault the jury for so
-2-
finding. I wholeheartedly agreed with their findings, matter of fact.
Honestly I had difficulty believing a lot of what Miss Mills said;
* * * my skepticism about her credibility relates also to her version
of how the accident happened * * *.”
The trial justice then proceeded to deny plaintiff’s motion. It is clear to us that the trial justice
followed the appropriate procedure in denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. Thus, we do
not perceive any error in that denial.
We have carefully read plaintiff’s statement and supplemental statement, both filed
pursuant to Article I, Rule 12(A) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure, and we
have considered all of the contentions contained therein. To the extent that plaintiff makes
additional contentions beyond the argument that the trial justice erred in denying her motion for
a new trial, those contentions are without merit.
In conclusion, after careful consideration of the plaintiff’s contentions on appeal and a
thorough perusal of the record in this case, it is our judgment that the trial justice did not commit
reversible error in the instant case.
Accordingly, the Superior Court’s judgment is affirmed. The record may be returned to
that tribunal.
Entered as an Order of this Court, this 5th day of June, 2017.
By Order,
/s/
Clerk
-3-
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS
SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
ORDER COVER SHEET
Title of Case Geraldine Mills v. Nathan Reichle.
No. 2016-211-Appeal.
Case Number (KC 12-583)
June 5, 2017
Date Order Filed
Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia,
Justices
JJ.
Kent County Superior Court
Source of Appeal
Associate Justice Bennett R. Gallo
Judicial Officer From Lower Court
For Plaintiff:
Geraldine Mills, Pro Se
Attorney(s) on Appeal
For Defendant:
Steven DiLibero, Jr., Esq.
SU-CMS-02B (revised November 2016)