This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. '. 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Browning Ferris Industries of Minnesota, Inc.,
Filed July 23, 1996
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 94-9500
Jesse Gant III, Gant Law Office, 915 Grain Exchange Building, 400 South 4th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55415 (for Appellant)
William M. Hart, Joseph W.E. Schmitt, Meagher & Geer, P.L.L.P., 4200 Multifoods Tower, 33 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402-3788 (for Respondent)
Considered and decided by Huspeni, Presiding Judge, Toussaint, Chief Judge, and Foley, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
Appellant Michael Boynes challenges the jury verdict denying his claim against respondent Browning Ferris Industries (BFI) for injuries he sustained in an automobile accident. He claims the verdict is unsupported by the evidence, and the trial court erred by declining to admit into evidence a statement made by a trial witness. We affirm.
During morning traffic on March 2, 1993, Boynes was involved in an accident while traveling east on Highway 55/County Road 62 in Minneapolis. According to Boynes, he lost control of his car after it was pushed off the road by a blue truck labeled with the letters "FI." As a result of the accident, Boynes claims to have sustained injuries to his neck and back.
Boynes initiated a personal injury action against BFI. At trial, BFI's district safety manager, John Scheffler, testified that no BFI truck reported being involved in an accident on March 2, 1993, or sustained damage on that date. BFI also introduced photographs of Boyness' car, taken one day after the accident, which revealed that the car had only minor damage.
By special verdict, the jury found that neither Boynes nor BFI was negligent in operating their respective vehicles at the time of the accident. Boynes challenges the jury verdict as unsupported by the evidence. He also challenges the trial court's adverse ruling on his request to admit into evidence a purported transcription of a taped witness statement made on July 24, 1994.
D E C I S I O N
Boynes appeals solely from the judgment as allowed by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03(a). Nevertheless, Boynes made a posttrial motion for JNOV or, alternatively, a new trial, which the trial court denied by its order of October 31, 1995. Where the time to appeal from the posttrial orders expires before the time to appeal from the judgment, "timely appeal from the judgment on the merits will present all procedural errors preserved in the motion for a new trial." Id. at 427 (citations omitted). On appeal from a judgment, review "is limited to whether the evidence supports the court's findings of fact and whether those findings support the conclusions of law." Hackett v. State, 502 N.W.2d 425, 426 (Minn. App. 1993) (citation omitted).
Here, the verdict reached by the jury is amply supported by the evidence. Although the jury concluded that Boynes sustained a disability for 60 days or more as a result of the accident, it did not find that BFI was negligent in operating one of its vehicles at the time of the accident. BFI's John Scheffler testified that no BFI trucks were involved in an accident or damaged on March 2, 1993. Despite the accident occurring during "rush hour," Boynes offered no eyewitness testimony at trial. Although Boynes testified that a BFI truck was involved in the accident, the jury apparently chose to resolve this conflict in the evidence in BFI's favor. See Dang v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Ctr., 490 N.W.2d 653, 659 (Minn. App. 1992), review denied (Minn. Dec. 15, 1992) (jury resolves conflicting evidence and appellate courts view evidence in light most favorable to verdict). Boynes devotes a significant portion of his brief to recounting the evidence favorable to his claims. Nevertheless, we conclude that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, supports the jury's verdict. See Hanks v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 493 N.W.2d 302, 309 (Minn. App. 1992), review denied (Minn. Feb. 12, 1993).
Boynes further contends that the trial court should have admitted a taped witness statement into evidence, even though the witness testified at trial. The trial court sustained BFI's objection to its admission for lack of foundation and for its inclusion of legal conclusions. "[E]videntiary rulings[, however,] * * * are subject to appellate review only if there has been a motion for a new trial in which such matters have been assigned as error." Sauter v. Wasemiller, 389 N.W.2d 200, 201 (Minn. 1986) (citation omitted). As Boynes did not raise this iss