Don v. Edison Car Company, New Jersey Appellate Division May 9, 2019 (Not Approved for Publication)
Submitted by New Jersey Civil Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark.
We review the denial of a motion for a new trial under the same standard that bound the trial court. Risko v. Thompson Muller Auto. Grp., Inc., 206 N.J. 506, 522 (2011). We will disturb the trial court’s ruling only if “it clearly and convincingly appears that there was a miscarriage of justice under the law.” R. 4:49-1(a); see also Risko, 206 N.J. at 521 (“[A] motion for a new trial should be granted only where to do otherwise would result in a miscarriage of justice shocking to the conscience of the court.” (internal quotation omitted)). A miscarriage of justice may “arise . . . from manifest lack of inherently credible evidence to support the finding, obvious overlooking or undervaluation of crucial evidence, [or] a clearly unjust result.” Risko, 206 N.J. at 521 (alterations in original) (quoting Lindemuth v. Holden, 296 N.J. Super. 42, 48 (App. Div. 1996)). “On a motion for a new trial, all evidence supporting the verdict must be accepted as true, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of upholding the verdict.” Boryszewski ex rel. Boryszewski v. Burke, 380 N.J. Super. 361, 391 (App. Div. 2005).