Trial-Related Issues (Including Motions in Limine)
Jury Verdict – Review by Appellate Court
Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals
Lebel v. CWS Marketing Group, Inc., No. E2022-01106-COA-R3-CV, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2023).
On appeal, “our review of a jury’s factual findings in a civil action is limited to determining whether any material evidence supported the verdict.” Potter v. Ford Motor Co., 213 S.W.3d 264, 268 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (citing In re Estate of Brindley, No. M1999-02224-COA-R3-CV, 2002 WL 1827578, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2002); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d)). Appellate courts are not empowered “to weigh the evidence, to determine the credibility of the witnesses, or to resolve conflicts in the testimony.” Duran v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc., 271 S.W.3d 178, 210 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). When determining whether the record contains material evidence to support a jury’s verdict, “the appellate court must review the record and ‘take the strongest legitimate view of all the evidence in favor of the verdict, assume the truth of all evidence that supports the verdict, allow all reasonable inferences to sustain the verdict, and discard all countervailing evidence.’” Borne v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc., 532 S.W.3d 274, 298 (Tenn. 2017) (quoting Akers v. Prime Succession of Tenn., Inc., 387 S.W.3d 495, 501 (Tenn. 2012)). If there is any material evidence to support the verdict, we must affirm it; otherwise, the parties would be deprived of their constitutional right to trial by jury. Crabtree Masonry Co. v. C & R Const., Inc., 575 S.W.2d 4, 5 (Tenn. 1978).
[K]eep in mind that the Constitution of Tennessee assigns this task to the jury. Smith v. Sloan, 225 S.W.2d 539, 541 (Tenn. 1949); Jackson v. B. Lowenstein & Bros., Inc., 136 S.W.2d 495, 496 (Tenn. 1940). Appellate courts are not a jury of three with the prerogative to re-weigh the evidence, Whaley v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 900 S.W.2d 296, 300 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995); Lowe v. Preferred Truck Leasing, Inc., 528 S.W.2d 38, 41 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975), or to determine where the “truth” lies. D.M. Rose & Co. v. Snyder, 206 S.W.2d 897, 901 (Tenn. 1947); Davis v. Wilson, 522 S.W.2d 872, 875 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1974). Nor are they empowered to substitute their judgment for the jury’s, Grissom v. Modine Mfg. Co., 581 S.W.2d 651, 652 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1978), even if they conclude that the evidence might well have supported a different conclusion, or that the jury did not weigh the evidence well or that they would have reached a different conclusion had they been members of the jury.
Family Trust Services LLC v. Green Wise Homes LLC, No. M2021-01350-COA-R3-CV, p. 9-10, 11 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2022).
The trial judge must be independently satisfied with the verdict; if the trial judge is dissatisfied with the verdict, the verdict must be set aside. Holden v. Rannick, 682 S.W.2d 903, 905 (Tenn. 1984). In addressing a motion for a new trial, the trial court has such broad discretion that it is not bound to give reasons for its action in granting or denying a new trial based on the preponderance of the evidence. James E. Strates Shows, Inc. v. Jakobik, 554 S.W.2d 613, 615 (Tenn. 1977). Indeed, when a trial judge approves the verdict without comment, the appellate court will presume that the trial judge has adequately performed his function as the thirteenth juror. Holden, 682 S.W.2d at 905 (citing Cent. Truckaway Sys. v. Waltner, 36 Tenn. App. 202, 253 S.W.2d 985, 991 (1952)).
Borne v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc., 532 S.W.3d 274, 308 (Tenn. 2017) (other internal citations omitted). However, if the trial court judge states the reasoning for her decision, “this court looks to [the stated reasons] only for the purpose of determining whether [the judge] passed upon the issues, and was satisfied or dissatisfied with the verdict thereon.” Holden v. Rannick, 682 S.W.2d 903, 905 (Tenn. 1984) (quoting Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Smithwick, 79 S.W. 803, 805 (Tenn. 1904)). “If a trial judge, in discharging his duty as a thirteenth juror, makes comments which indicate that he has misconceived his duty as a thirteenth juror, an appellate court must reverse the trial judge and remand for a new trial.” See Holden, 682 S.W.2d at 905.
…
Where a trial judge has simply approved the verdict without comment, an appellate court will presume that he has adequately performed his function as a thirteenth juror. Central Truckaway System v. Waltner, 36 Tenn. App. 202, 217, 253 S.W.2d 985, 991 (1952). If reasons are given, “this court looks to them only for the purpose of determining whether he passed upon the issues, and was satisfied or dissatisfied with the verdict thereon.” Smithwick, supra, 112 Tenn. at 470, 79 S.W. at 805. If a trial judge, in discharging his duty as a thirteenth juror, makes comments which indicate that he has misconceived his duty as a thirteenth juror, an appellate court must reverse the trial judge and remand for a new trial. See Nashville, C. & St. L.R. Co. v. Neely, 102 Tenn. 700, 52 S.W. 167 (1899).
Holden, 682 S.W.2d at 904-05.
TMS Contracting, LLC v. SmithGroup JJR, Inc., No. M2020-01028-COA-R3-CV, p. 8 & 10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 9, 2022).
If a jury verdict is inconsistent and irreconcilable, we must reverse and remand for a new trial. See Milliken v. Smith, 405 S.W.2d 475, 477 (Tenn. 1966).
…
Our task then is to ascertain whether the record contains any material evidence to support the jury’s findings. Kelley v. Johns, 96 S.W.3d 189, 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). In a material evidence review, we do not reweigh the evidence or re-evaluate witness credibility. Grissom v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville, Davidson Cnty., 817 S.W.2d 679, 684 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). That is the jury’s province. Ferguson v. Middle Tenn. State Univ., 451 S.W.3d 375, 383-84 (Tenn. 2014).
Whether evidence is material has nothing to do with its weight. Kelley, 96 S.W.3d at 194. “Material evidence” is evidence “which must necessarily enter into the consideration of the controversy and by itself, or in connection with the other evidence, be determinative of the case.” Meals ex rel. Meals v. Ford Motor Co., 417 S.W.3d 414, 422 (Tenn. 2013) (quoting Knoxville Traction Co. v. Brown, 89 S.W. 319, 321 (Tenn. 1905)). We take the strongest legitimate view of the evidence supporting the verdict, including all reasonable inferences, assume the truth of the supporting evidence, and discard all countervailing evidence. Crabtree Masonry Co. v. C & R Constr., Inc., 575 S.W.2d 4, 5 (Tenn. 1978). If there is any material evidence to support the verdict, we must affirm. Id.
Commercial Painting Co., Inc. v. The Weitz Co., LLC, p. 12 No. W2019-02089-COA-R3-CV (Mar. 11, 2022).
Of course, in testing the validity of a plaintiff’s jury award we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff. This court has no right to weigh the evidence in a jury case, but must indulge every reasonable inference in favor of the plaintiff when there is material evidence in support of the verdict. Houser v. Persinger, 57 Tenn.App. 401, 405, 419 S.W.2d 179, 181 ([Tenn. Ct. App.] 1967). We must look at all the evidence, take the strongest legitimate view of it in favor of the plaintiff and allow all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor. Norman v. Liberty Life Assurance Co., 556 S.W.2d 772, 773 (Tenn. [ct.] App. 1977); Truan v. Smith, 578 S.W.2d 73, 74 (Tenn. 1979). Our duty upon review of conflicting evidence in a jury trial is not to determine where the truth lies, but only to determine if there was any material evidence to support the verdict below. Davis v. Wilson, 522 S.W.2d 872, 875 (Tenn. [Ct.] App. 1974); Chattanooga Gas Co. v. Underwood, 38 Tenn.App. 142, 149, 270 S.W.2d 652, 655 (1954). Even if we would have reached conclusions different from those reached by the jury, if there is some material evidence to support the verdict, it must be affirmed. Davis v. Wilson, supra; Chattanooga Gas Co. v. Underwood, supra at 149–150, 270 S.W.2d at 655–656.
Mason v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co., 640 S.W.2d 561, 564 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982).
Old Republic Life Ins. Co. v. Woody, No. E2019-01475-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2022).
Regarding our standard of review for cases decided by a jury, the Tennessee Supreme Court has instructed:
An appellate court shall only set aside findings of fact by a jury in a civil matter if there is no material evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Whaley v. Perkins, 197 S.W.3d 665, 671 (Tenn. 2006). In determining whether there is material evidence to support a verdict, we shall: “(1) take the strongest legitimate view of all the evidence in favor of the verdict; (2) assume the truth of all evidence that supports the verdict; (3) allow all reasonable inferences to sustain the verdict; and (4) discard all [countervailing] evidence.” Barnes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 48 S.W.3d 698, 704 (Tenn. 2000) (citing Crabtree Masonry Co. v. C & R Constr., Inc., 575 S.W.2d 4, 5 (Tenn. 1978)). “Appellate courts shall neither reweigh the evidence nor decide where the preponderance of the evidence lies.” Barnes, 48 S.W.3d at 704. If there is any material evidence to support the verdict, we must affirm it; otherwise, the parties would be deprived of their constitutional right to trial by jury. Crabtree Masonry Co., 575 S.W.2d at 5.
Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W.3d 363, 372 (Tenn. 2009).
Malone v. ASF Intermodal, LLC, No. W2020-00430-COA-R3-CV (Feb. 7, 2022).
In reviewing a jury verdict, this Court is “required to take ‘the strongest legitimate view of all the evidence in favor of the verdict, assume the truth of all evidence that supports the verdict, allowing all reasonable inferences to sustain the verdict, and to discard all countervailing evidence.’” Meals ex rel. Meals v. Ford Motor Co., 417 S.W.3d 414, 422 (Tenn. 2013) (quoting Akers v. Prime Succession of Tenn., Inc., 387 S.W.3d 495, 501-02 (Tenn. 2012)); see also Bell v. Roberts, No. M2018-02126-COA-R3-CV, 2020 WL 3832995, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 8, 2020). An appellate court will not disturb a jury’s verdict that is approved by the trial court if there is “any material evidence to support the award.” Ellis v. White Freightliner Corp., 603 S.W.2d 125, 129 (Tenn. 1980); see also Holt v. Kirk, No. W2017-00847-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 1915158, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2019) (“On appeal, our task is limited to a review of the record to determine if the jury verdict is supported by any material evidence.”). “Material evidence” is “‘evidence material to the question in controversy, which must necessarily enter into the consideration of the controversy and by itself, or in connection with the other evidence, be determinative of the case.’” Meals, 417 S.W.3d at 422 (quoting Knoxville Traction Co. v. Brown, 89 S.W. 319, 321 (Tenn. 1905)). “‘It matters not a whit where the weight or preponderance of the evidence lies under a material evidence review.’” Id. at 423 (quoting Hohenberg Bros. Co. v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 586 S.W.2d 117, 119-20 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979)). As the Meals Court explained, “the material evidence standard lies at the foundation of the right to trial by jury.” Id. (citing TENN. CONST. art. I, § 6; Truan v. Smith, 578 S.W.2d 73, 74 (Tenn. 1979)). As a result, we are required to affirm a jury verdict “if there is material evidence to support [it].” Id.
