Feeley v. Royal, Grimm & Davis, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: September 25, 1996
• Docket: CV-92-526-SD
• Status: Published

Opinion

Feeley v. Royal, Grimm & Davis, Inc. CV-92-526-SD 09/25/96 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

James A. Feeley

v. Civil No. 91-526-SD

Royal, Grimm & Davis, Inc.; Jay V. Grimm

O R D E R

This matter comes before the court on plaintiff's motion for

a new trial. Document 122. The defendants object. Document

123.

1. Background

In this case, plaintiff alleged that the defendants

tortiously interfered with plaintiff's employment contract with

the former BankEast Corporation. The case was tried over several

days to a jury.

With the input of counsel, special verdict questions were

submitted to the jury. At the request of plaintiff's counsel,

and over the objection of defendants' counsel, the first two of

these questions were directed to plaintiff's knowledge of damages

sustained by him prior to January 18, 1988. At no time prior to the discharge of the jury did plaintiff's counsel object to the

form of, submission to, or answers returned by the jury to these

questions.

The affirmative answers of the jury to the two questions

triggered application of the relevant statute of limitations,

resulting in the return of verdicts for defendants. Plaintiff

now contends that the jury's answer to the second of these

questions was inconsistent with the court's instructions and

contrary to the clear weight of the evidence.

2. Discussion

A motion for new trial is addressed to the discretion of the

court and will not be granted unless the verdict was so clearly

against the weight of the evidence as to amount to a manifest

miscarriage of justice. Fernandez v. Corporacion Insular De

Seguros, 79 F.3d 207, 211 (1st Cir. 1996); Federico v. Order of

St. Benedict in Rhode Island, 64 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1995); Lama

v. Borras, 16 F.3d 473, 477 (1st Cir. 1994). And, unless the

alleged error was fundamental, a new trial will not be granted on

grounds which were not called to the court's attention during the

trial. Perez-Perez v. Popular Leasing Rental, Inc., 993 F.2d

281, 284 (1st Cir. 1993); 11 W r i g h t , M i l l e r & Ka n e , Federal Practice and

P r o c e d u r e : C ivil (Se c o n d ) § 2805, at 57, 58 (West 1995) .

2 Additionally, where, as is here the case, the claim is of

inconsistency in civil jury verdicts, such claim must be advanced

before the jury is discharged. Kavanaugh v. Greenlee Tool Co.

944 F .2d 7, 11 (1st Cir. 1991).

Having failed to call his claim of inconsistency in the

answers to the special verdict guestions to the attention of the

court prior to discharge of the jury, and having failed to object

to the form of or submission of such verdicts to the jury, the

plaintiff is not now entitled to claim a right to a new trial.

3. Conclusion

Plaintiff's motion for new trial must be and it is

accordingly herewith denied.

SO ORDERED.

Shane Devine, Senior Judge United States District Court

September 25, 1996

cc: Robert E. Murphy, Jr., Esg. William L. Chapman, Esg. Andrew D. Dunn, Esg.