Legal Definitions - manifest weight of the evidence

The term manifest weight of the evidence refers to a legal standard that a higher court uses when reviewing a lower court's factual findings, such as a jury's verdict or a judge's decision in a trial without a jury. This standard means that the higher court will give significant deference, or respect, to the lower court's decision.

A higher court will only overturn the lower court's findings if the evidence presented so overwhelmingly points to a different conclusion that the original decision is clearly unreasonable, illogical, or unsupported by the facts. It's not enough for the higher court to simply disagree with the outcome; the original decision must be demonstrably wrong based on the evidence presented, making another outcome obviously correct.

Here are some examples illustrating this concept:

• Car Accident Liability:

  Imagine a jury in a car accident case hears testimony and reviews evidence. The plaintiff claims the defendant ran a red light, causing the collision. The defendant denies it, claiming the plaintiff was speeding. After deliberation, the jury finds the plaintiff 100% at fault. However, during the trial, three independent eyewitnesses testified that the defendant clearly ran the red light, and dashcam footage from a nearby vehicle also showed the defendant's car entering the intersection after the light had turned red. The plaintiff presented no evidence of speeding.

  If the plaintiff appeals, the appellate court might find that the jury's verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Despite the jury's decision, the overwhelming and uncontradicted evidence (eyewitness accounts, video footage) clearly pointed to the defendant being at fault. The jury's conclusion that the plaintiff was 100% at fault, in light of this strong evidence, would be considered unreasonable and clearly unsupported by the facts presented at trial.

• Business Contract Dispute:

  Consider a dispute between two companies, "TechSolutions" and "GlobalParts," over a supply contract. TechSolutions claims GlobalParts failed to deliver critical components on time, causing significant financial losses. After a trial where a judge hears all the evidence without a jury, the judge rules in favor of GlobalParts, stating that GlobalParts met all contractual deadlines.

  However, during the trial, TechSolutions presented numerous shipping logs, delivery receipts signed by GlobalParts' own employees acknowledging late arrivals, and internal emails from GlobalParts' project managers discussing the delays. GlobalParts, in contrast, offered only vague testimony from one employee denying the delays, without any supporting documents. If TechSolutions appeals, the higher court might review the evidence. If the shipping logs, receipts, and emails unequivocally demonstrate that GlobalParts consistently delivered components late, and GlobalParts provided no credible evidence to counter this, the judge's finding that GlobalParts met all deadlines could be deemed against the manifest weight of the evidence. The judge's decision would be seen as clearly contrary to the overwhelming factual record.