David

We have previously commented on the well-known rules attendant to the review of orders granting and denying a motion for a new trial, in both the civil and criminal contexts. (Baker v. American Horticulture Supply, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1067-1068 [ 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 695 ]; People v. Andrade (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 651, 661 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 314 ].) Generally speaking, the rules are designed to affirm the trial court’s ruling. This is the rare case where we reverse an order denying a motion for new trial. We caution that not every legal mistake or unsound course of reasoning will inexorably result in reversal of an order denying a motion for new trial. Where, as here, the legal error strikes at the heart of the motion for new trial, we are compelled to reverse.

Joshua David and Natalie Pierson appeal from the judgment entered in favor of David Hernandez and D & H Trucking, respondents. Appellants brought a negligence action against respondents. The action arose out of a collision between appellants’ vehicle and Hernandez’s truck. The jury returned a special verdict finding that Hernandez was negligent but that his negligence was not a substantial factor in causing…