In this instance, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff that was based upon a special verdict form clearly delineating between liability and the assessment of damages. Judge Wimberly affirmed the finding of liability by entering judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and declining to direct a verdict in favor of the Defendant. See Holden, 682 S.W.2d at 905. Later, Judge Wimberly declined to grant the Defendant’s request for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, instead granting a new trial “independent of considerations regarding sufficiency of the evidence,” thereby indicating that the basis for the new trial was not any lack of evidence of negligence or negligence per se on the part of the Defendant. Cf. Rosado v. Plaza Las 4ms., Inc., 172 F.R.D. 15, 17 (D.P.R.1997) (<HOLDING>); see also Huskey, 865 S.W.2d at 454 (“[I]t is
recognizing that a partial new trial may be granted if the issue of damages is so distinct and independent  that it can be separately tried holding new trial should not have been granted because jury was properly instructed holding that trial judge should have granted new trial rather than judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the judge could not know in what order the jury reached its inconsistent verdicts recognizing that although a new trial may be granted on all or part of the issues tried  by a jury  a trial judge cannot displace a jurys verdict merely because he disagrees with it or would have found otherwise in a bench trial  quoting milone v mocen family inc 847 f2d 35 37 1st cir1988 holding that where the meaning of the jurys verdict was not clear in light of the trial courts jury instructions the court of appeals erred in directing entry of judgment for respondent the case should have been remanded to the trial judge who was in the best position to pass upon the question of a new trial in light of the evidence his charge to the jury and the jurys verdict