Downs v. Knight.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE HENRY duPONT RIDGELY KENT COUNTY COURT HOUSE 38 THE GREEN DOVER, DELAWARE 19901 P R E S I DE N T J U D G E Gary W. Alderson, Esq. Weik, Nitsche & Dougherty P.O. Box 2324 Wilmington, DE 19899 Re: Jeffrey A. Young, Esq. Young & Young 300 South State Street Dover, DE 19903 Downs v. Knight C.A. No. 02C-01-024 HDR Submitted: April 8, 2003 Decided: April 14, 2003 Upon Plaintiff s Motion for New Trial and/or Additur - DENIED Counsel: This is a civil action arising from a collision in a parking lot on November 27, 2000. The jury found each party to be 50% negligent and awarded zero dollars in damages to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has moved for a new trial or additur. A jury verdict is presumed to be correct and just.1 The Court has the authority to grant a new trial if the verdict is out of proportion to the injury so as to shock the Court s conscience and sense of justice, or if the verdict is based upon passion, partiality, prejudice, or mistake on the part of the jury. 2 The damages claimed in this case were based upon Plaintiff s subjective 1 2 Mills v. Telenczak, 345 A.2d 424 (Del. 1975). Storey v. Castner, 314 A.2d 187 (Del. 1973); McCloskey v. McKelvey, 174 A.2d 691 (Del. Super. 1961). Downs v. Knight C.A. No. 02C-01-024 HDR April 14, 2003 complaints supported by the testimony of a chiropractor who first saw Plaintiff one week after the accident. Plaintiff s credibility was contested and he was shown to have been working while claiming total disability benefits under his PIP coverage. Based upon the evidence presented, a reasonable jury could have found that Plaintiff was not entitled to any award of damages.3 Accordingly, Plaintiff s motion for new trial or additur is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Very truly yours, /s/ Henry duPont Ridgely cmh oc: Prothonotary xc: Order distribution 3 Kossol v. Duffy, 765 A.2d 952 (Del. 2000); Walker v. Patrick, 2002 Del. Super. LEXIS 276 (Del. Super. 2002); Hayes v. Bartoli, 2001 WL 1456472 (Del. Super. 2001).
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.
