Court refuses to second-guess jury's resolution of credibility of witnesses
John Morrison was injured when he drove into a road construction excavation which he maintained was unmarked. He and a companion who was following him in another vehicle claimed that there were no barricades or warnings at the site of the excavation. The contractor responsible for erecting barricades and warnings, John Carlo, Inc., presented testimony from its own employees and from MDOT engineers, attesting to the fact that proper barricades and warnings were erected and in place every 25 feet. Each party also presented circumstantial evidence to impeach the other party's witnesses.
The jury ultimately rejected Morrison's injury claim, and he asked the appellate court to over-turn the decision. Both the trial court and the unanimous Court of Appeals declined, noting that the case "boils down to...who did the jury believe?" The judges reinforced the principle that in matters of credibility, it is the jury's role and duty to decide the facts: unless the facts predominate so heavily that reasonable minds could not differ, the jury is the ultimate decision-maker.