APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is an appeal from the Trial Court’s denial of a Motion for New Trial filed by Plaintiff/Appellant, Johnny D. Young. The motion was based upon allegations of a quotient verdict, improper admission of evidence, and improper argument by counsel for Defendant/Appellee, Norfolk Southern Railway Company. Although Plaintiff prevailed in his Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) action against Defendant, Plaintiff alleged five grounds in a Motion for New Trial, attaching as exhibits affidavits of five jurors, a court officer and Plaintiff’s trial counsel. Defendant responded with contradictory affidavits from four jurors. By entry of a Memorandum and Order, the Trial Court denied four of the grounds for new trial asserted by Plaintiff, and reserved final ruling on the issue of quotient verdict pending testimony by the jurors to resolve the contradictory statements in the affidavits filed by the parties. A hearing was held during which

This is an appeal from the Trial Court’s denial of a Motion for New Trial filed by Plaintiff/Appellant, Johnny D. Young. The motion was based upon allegations of a quotient verdict, improper admission of evidence, and improper argument by counsel for Defendant/Appellee, Norfolk Southern Railway Company. Although Plaintiff prevailed in his Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) action against Defendant, Plaintiff alleged five grounds in a Motion for New Trial, attaching as exhibits affidavits of five jurors, a court officer and Plaintiff’s trial counsel. Defendant responded with contradictory affidavits from four jurors. By entry of a Memorandum and Order, the Trial Court denied four of the grounds for new trial asserted by Plaintiff, and reserved final ruling on the issue of quotient verdict pending testimony by the jurors to resolve the contradictory statements in the affidavits filed by the parties. A hearing was held during which the Trial Court questioned, and then heard examination by counsel for the parties of, all twelve jurors. After Plaintiff voiced allegations of improper communication between jurors at this first hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel and a paralegal for Plaintiff’s counsel testified at a second hearing. The Trial Court subsequently entered a second Memorandum and Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial in its entirety. The issue in this appeal is whether the Trial Court erred in the application of evidence gathered in the post-trial proceedings, with peripheral assertions of error concerning the conduct of the trial. We affirm the Trial Court’s denial of the Motion for New Trial, as all issues raised by Plaintiff were properly, and articulately, resolved by the Trial Court.