John is walking on a sidewalk when Acme Construction Corp. decides to move its crane so that the piano being hoisted dangles precariously over John's head. The crane operator, Mike, makes a sudden turn of the wheel, causing the cable to sway furiously, which in turn causes the piano to fall, just missing John. John, frightened and devastated because it was his $500,000 grand piano, sues Acme for negligence. During trial, John presents 10 witnesses, all of whom testify that in their opinion, Mike was intoxicated while operating the crane. John also presents pictures showing five empty beer cans littered on the floor of the crane's cab. Finally, John presents testimony from Mike's colleagues, all of whom state that Mike frequently operated the crane while intoxicated. After John rests his case, Mike testifies that he was not drunk while operating the crane. The jury returns a verdict for Mike, finding him to be not liable to John. John moves for a new trial. On what ground would John be most successful?

John is walking on a sidewalk when Acme Construction Corp. decides to move its crane so that the piano being hoisted dangles precariously over John's head. The crane operator, Mike, makes a sudden turn of the wheel, causing the cable to sway furiously, which in turn causes the piano to fall, just missing John. The piano crashes to the ground and splinters into thousands of pieces. John, frightened because the piano almost hit him, and devastated because it was his grand piano worth $500,000, sues Acme for compensatory and punitive damages. During trial, John presents 10 witnesses, all of whom testify that, in their opinion, Mike was intoxicated while operating the crane. John also presents pictures showing five empty beer cans littered on the floor of the crane's cab. Finally, John presents testimony from Mike's colleagues, all of whom state that Mike frequently operated the crane while intoxicated. After John rests his case, Mike testifies that he was not drunk while operating the crane. The jury returns a verdict for John, finding Mike negligent, and awards $100,000. John moves for a new trial. On what ground would John be most successful?

John is walking on a sidewalk when Acme Construction Corp. decides to move its crane so that the piano being hoisted dangles precariously over John's head. The crane operator, Mike, makes a sudden turn of the wheel, causing the cable to sway furiously, which in turn causes the piano to fall, just missing John. The piano crashes to the ground and splinters into thousands of pieces. John, frightened because the piano almost hit him, and devastated because it was his grand piano worth $500,000, sues Acme for compensatory and punitive damages. During trial, John presents 10 witnesses, all of whom testify that, in their opinion, Mike was intoxicated while operating the crane. John also presents pictures showing five empty beer cans littered on the floor of the crane's cab. Finally, John presents testimony from Mike's colleagues, all of whom state that Mike frequently operated the crane while intoxicated. After John rests his case, Mike testifies that he was not drunk while operating the crane. The jury returns a verdict for John, finding Mike negligent, and awards $100,000. The judge, reading the jury's verdict, decides that the verdict is inadequate and, on its own, orders a new trial. Acme argues that such an action is improper. Is Acme correct?

John is walking on a sidewalk when Acme Construction Corp. decides to move its crane so that the piano being hoisted dangles precariously over John's head. The crane operator, Mike, makes a sudden turn of the wheel, causing the cable to sway furiously, which in turn causes the piano to fall, just missing John. The piano crashes to the ground and splinters into thousands of pieces. John, frightened because the piano almost hit him, and devastated because it was his grand piano worth $500,000, sues Acme for compensatory and punitive damages. During trial, John presents 10 witnesses, all of whom testify that, in their opinion, Mike was intoxicated while operating the crane. John also presents pictures showing five empty beer cans littered on the floor of the crane's cab. Finally, John presents testimony from Mike's colleagues, all of whom state that Mike frequently operated the crane while intoxicated. After John rests his case, Mike testifies that he was not drunk while operating the crane. The jury returns a verdict for John, finding Mike negligent, and awards $100,000. What if the jury returned a verdict for John, finding Mike negligent, and awards $1 million. Is Acme likely to be successful in moving for a new trial on the ground that the verdict is excessive?

While walking on a public sidewalk in the Village of Greenacre, Seth trips over a crack in the sidewalk and is injured. Seth sues the Village of Greenacre for damages. The jury, finding the Village liable, awards Seth damages to compensate him for his injuries. After the jury renders its verdict, the pertinent law is amended to require a municipality to receive notice of a defective condition before it can be held liable. Before the law was changed, there was no requirement that the municipality receive notice of a defective condition before it can be held liable. The Village moves for a new trial on the basis that the law has changed and that because it was not given any notice of the defective condition, it cannot be held liable for Seth's injuries. How will the judge rule?

While walking on a public sidewalk in the Village of Greenacre, Seth trips over a crack in the sidewalk and is injured. Seth sues the Village of Greenacre for damages. The jury, finding the Village liable, awards Seth damages to compensate him for his injuries. Before the jury renders its verdict, in the middle of the action, the pertinent law is amended to require a municipality to receive notice of a defective condition before it can be held liable. Before the law was changed, there was no requirement that the municipality receive notice of a defective condition before it can be held liable. The Village moves to alter the judgment on the ground that under the new law, it cannot be held liable for Seth's injuries. (It is conceded that no notice was given.) Will the court grant or deny the motion?