## Facts

- Jose Garcia (plaintiff) was struck by an automobile driven by John Bynum (defendant) while Garcia was crossing a street in Washington, D.C.
- Garcia suffered a broken leg and sued Bynum for negligence.
- The parties offered conflicting accounts of how the collision happened.
- Garcia testified that he saw Bynum’s car about five car lengths away and that he crossed about one-third of a block south of an intersection.
- Garcia also testified that:
  - it was nighttime and he wore dark clothing,
  - he came out from between parked cars in the middle of the block,
  - he knew a car was approaching,
  - a nearby sign indicated it was safe to cross, and he had seen others cross safely,
  - he walked across multiple lanes without confirming that the approaching car would stop, assuming Bynum would stop for a yellow light.

- Bynum and two witnesses testified that Garcia stepped out from between parked cars mid-block and immediately into the path of Bynum’s car, leaving little time to avoid impact.
- The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for Garcia.
- Bynum moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, alternatively, a new trial, contending that the evidence required a finding that Garcia’s own conduct barred recovery and that the verdict reflected sympathy, passion, or prejudice.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Garcia, allowed a reasonable jury to find Bynum negligent and to reject contributory negligence as a matter of law, so that JNOV was properly denied.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence or the product of sympathy, passion, or prejudice.

## Decision

- The district court denied Bynum’s post-trial motion for JNOV and his alternative motion for a new trial.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed the judgment for Garcia (affirming the district court’s decision reported at 635 F. Supp. 745).

## Legal Principles

- A court may grant JNOV only when, after drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict winner, no reasonable juror could have found for that party.
- Conflicts in testimony and choices among competing versions of events are for the jury, not the appellate court, to resolve.
- Under District of Columbia law, contributory negligence is a complete bar to recovery, but it is generally a jury question unless the evidence permits only one reasonable conclusion.
- A motion for a new trial may be granted when the verdict is against the weight of the evidence or would result in a miscarriage of justice; denial of a new trial is reviewed with substantial deference to the trial court.
- A claim that a verdict resulted from sympathy, passion, or prejudice requires more than disagreement with the jury’s result; the movant must show a trial record that supports the claim.

## Conclusion

Because the record contained competing testimony about Garcia’s conduct and Bynum’s opportunity to avoid the collision, the jury could reasonably resolve negligence and contributory-negligence questions in Garcia’s favor; and given the deference owed to the trial court on a new-trial request, the D.C. Circuit upheld the denial of JNOV and a new trial and affirmed the judgment for Garcia.


Garcia v. Bynum, 816 F.2d 791 (1987)