In K.W. v. St. Louis Children’s Hospital, et al., ED113441, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, confirmed a trial court’s very broad discretion when granting a new trial on the ground that the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The case also underscores an important appellate point: when reviewing an order predicated on the weight of the evidence, the appellate court does not view the record in the light most favorable to the jury verdict. Instead, the court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the trial court’s decision to grant a new trial.
Background
The plaintiff brought a product-liability action against manufacturers of preterm infant formula, alleging the formula caused the plaintiff to develop a severe gastrointestinal condition.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendants. The trial court later granted the plaintiff’s motion for new trial on several grounds, including its determination under Rule 78.02 that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The defendants appealed.
Nearly Unfettered Discretion
The Eastern District began its analysis underscoring an established principle of Missouri law: a trial court has exceptionally broad discretion to grant a new trial when the trial court concludes that the jury’s verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Quoting prior authority, the Court described that discretion as “nearly unfettered.” As long as the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence at trial to make a submissible case, the trial court’s determination that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence ordinarily will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion—even if the appellate judges might have reached a different conclusion themselves.
That distinction matters because, in this context, weighing evidence is fundamentally the role of the trial court. It is not the role of the appellate court to reweigh competing testimony or independently determine which side presented the more persuasive case.
The Critical Question on Appeal: Was There Sufficient Evidence to Make a Submissible Case?
The defendants argued, among other things, that the jury’s return of a defendant’s verdict demonstrated that plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to support the claims. The Eastern District emphasized that a jury’s return of a defense verdict does not mandate a finding that the plaintiff failed to make a submissible case. Those are separate inquiries. When reviewing the grant of a new trial on weight-of-the-evidence grounds, the appellate court must determine from the record if sufficient evidence existed to submit the plaintiff’s claims to the jury. In making that determination, the appellate court must view the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the trial court’s order granting the new trial.
The Court expressly rejected an evidentiary analysis that would view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict – an analysis benefiting the defendants – explaining that doing so would apply the wrong standard of review. After examining the record before it, the Eastern District concluded that the record contained sufficient evidence to make a submissible case on the plaintiff’s claims.
How Much Explanation Must the Trial Court Give in its Order?
The defendants also challenged the trial court’s cursory explanation for granting the new trial, noting that Rule 78.03 requires an order granting a new trial to specify the ground or grounds on which the ruling is based. Failure to identify the grounds can render the order presumptively erroneous under Rule 84.05(c). Here, the trial court’s order merely recited that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and that a new trial was warranted under Rule 78.02.
The Eastern District acknowledged that the trial court’s explanation was brief but held that the explanation was nevertheless sufficient. The Court clarified that in granting a new trial on weight-of-the-evidence grounds, the trial court is not required to present a detailed evidentiary analysis, explain the trial court’s mental process, or identify precisely why certain evidence outweighed other evidence. Under the requirements of Rule 78.03, it is enough for the trial court to succinctly state that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
Why Grants and Denials of a Motion for New Trial Are Treated Differently
This appellate decision reflects an important asymmetry in Missouri law. Appellate courts are generally more deferential to a trial court’s grant of a new trial on weight-of-the-evidence grounds than to a trial court’s denial of a new trial on weight-of-the-evidence grounds. This deference flows from a trial judge’s personal and first-hand observation of the witnesses and their testimony. Because the trial judge is entrusted with assessing the qualitative weight of the evidence, appellate courts are averse to substituting their own assessment of a “dry” record for the personal observations and assessment of the trial judge.
Practice Takeaways
K.W. offers several useful reminders for both trial and appellate lawyers:
- A trial court has extremely broad discretion to grant a new trial when it finds the verdict to be against the weight of the evidence.
- The threshold appellate question for a challenge to the trial court’s grant of such motion is whether plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to make a submissible case.
- The appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, not the jury verdict.
- The appellate court does not reweigh the evidence.
- A trial court need not provide a lengthy explanation when granting a new trial on weight-of-the-evidence grounds; identifying that ground can be sufficient.
- The return of a jury verdict for the defendant does not of itself demonstrate that the plaintiff failed to make a submissible case.
The bottom line is that under Missouri law, when a trial judge concludes a jury’s verdict is against the weight of the evidence, appellate courts give that determination substantial deference and will not reweigh the evidence adduced at trial.
