Aubourg v. Erazo

Appellant, the defendant below in this automobile accident case, contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial. The motion asserted that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We find no error in the trial court’s denial of the motion for new trial. However, we write to address appellant’s argument that the court erred in denying the motion for new trial without holding a hearing.

In arguing that the trial court was required to hold a “live” hearing on his motion for new trial, appellant relies on Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Magnuson, 288…