99-2828 Sensenbrenner v. St. Paul Insurance Company, et al.

Listen to this article

St. Paul Insurance Company (St. Paul) appeals an order granting a new trial to David Sensenbrenner on his personal injury claim. The trial court granted Sensenbrenner’s motion “in the interest of justice” under Wis. Stat. sec. 805.15(1) (1999-2000). St. Paul claims the court erred by overriding the jury’s credibility determinations, and that its decision was based on both a mistaken view of the evidence and an erroneous view of the law. We disagree. The trial court acted within its authority under sec. 805.15, and provided a satisfactory explanation of its reasons for ordering a new trial. We conclude that the court’s decision is not based on a mistaken view of either the evidence or the law.

Accordingly, and because the trial court’s decision to order a new trial is entitled to our deference, we affirm.

Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Dane County, Higginbotham, J., Deininger, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Daniel W. Hildebrand, Madison; Samuel L. Lieb, Milwaukee; Joseph A. Ranney III, Madison; Kevin A. Christensen, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Daniel A. Rottier, Madison; Susan R. Steingass, Madison; Rhonda L. Lanford, Madison