BEVERLY ANN ELMORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. JOHN WOUDENBERG, Defendant-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-961 / 06-0544
Filed December 28, 2006
BEVERLY ANN ELMORE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
JOHN WOUDENBERG,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Annette J.
Scieszinski (motion for summary judgment) and E. Richard Meadows, Jr. (motion
for new trial), Judges.
Plaintiff Beverly Elmore appeals from the district court’s refusal to grant
her a new trial following a judgment for defendant John W. Woudenberg.
AFFIRMED.
Robert E. Breckenridge of Breckenridge & Duker, P.C., Ottumwa, for
appellant.
Michael J. Moreland and Allen L. Cook, III, of Harrison, Moreland &
Webber, P.C., Ottumwa, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
SACKETT, C.J.
Plaintiff Beverly Elmore appeals from the district court’s refusal to grant
her a new trial following a judgment for defendant John W. Woudenberg. We
affirm.
Cars driven by Elmore and Woudenberg collided at the three-way stop
intersection of Washington and Second in Ottumwa, Iowa. Both Elmore and
Woudenberg were required to stop before entering the intersection. After the
accident Woudenberg pled guilty to failure to stop at the intersection.
The case was tried to a jury. The jury found Elmore seventy-five percent
at fault and Woudenberg twenty-five percent at fault. The district court then
entered a judgment in favor of Woudenberg, and Elmore filed a motion for new
trial, which was denied. Elmore contends, among other things, that she should
have been granted a new trial because the verdict was not supported by the
evidence and does not do justice between the parties.
Our standard of review of a trial court's action on a motion for new trial is
for abuse of discretion. Foggia v. Des Moines Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 543 N.W.2d
889, 891 (Iowa 1996). We review the granting or denial of a motion for new trial
for abuse of discretion. Magnusson Agency v. Public Entity Nat. Co.-Midwest,
560 N.W.2d 20, 30 (Iowa 1997); Lane v. Coe College, 581 N.W.2d 214, 216
(Iowa Ct. App. 1998).
The trial judge found that after assessing the witnesses’ credibility, their
versions of the accident, pictures of the cars, and the other evidence the jury
could have reasonably determined Elmore was at fault for not keeping a proper
lookout, and her fault was more responsible for the accident than was
3
defendant’s fault. After reviewing the evidence, we find no reason to disagree
with the trial court’s conclusions. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in
denying the motion for new trial. We have considered Elmore’s other arguments
and find them to be without merit.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
