Case Conclusion Date:June 16, 1997
Outcome:The court denied and dismissed the company's appeal of the denial of its motion for a directed verdict and the owners' appeal of the grant of the company's motion for a new trial. The court affirmed the grant of the motion for a new trial and remanded.
Description:I have tried and settled hundreds of cases during my 30 years in the legal field. For your review, I will list just a few cases which have been decided in an appellate court. In this case, I represented the plaintiff. Defendant repair company sought review of a decision from the Superior Court of Providence County (Rhode Island), which denied the company's motion for a directed verdict. Plaintiff property owners appealed the grant of the company's motion for a new trial in their negligence action. The company repaired defendant restaurant's ice machine and loaned it an extension cord for the ice machine. The overheating of the cords started a fire and damaged the owners' property. The owners brought a negligence action. The trial court denied the company's motion for a directed verdict. The jury found that the restaurant was 90 percent negligent and the company was 10 percent. The trial court granted the company's motion for a new trial. On appeal, the court stated that the denial of the motion for a directed verdict was proper because the facts did not justify a holding as a matter of law that the restaurant's negligence in using the extension cord constituted an intervening cause and that the company's negligence had ceased to be the concurrent proximate cause of the injury. The court found that the trial court did not err in its grant of the motion for a new trial.