[3] First, the appellant says the jury verdict is perverse as the evidence supported a finding that she suffered compensable damages as a result of the accident. This ground of appeal includes the appellant’s argument that the trial judge erred by correcting his jury charge from his initial instructions, in which he expressed the view that an assessment of zero damages would not be appropriate, to an instruction that if the jury were to find that the accident did not cause any new injury, or exacerbation of any pre-existing injury, an award of zero damages would be available.
[6] The findings of a jury are entitled to great deference, particularly in cases such as this that depend largely on credibility. A jury verdict will not be set aside unless so plainly unreasonable and unjust as to satisfy the court that no jury reviewing the evidence as a whole and acting judicially could have reached it. On the evidence, it was open to this jury to conclude that the injuries that formed the basis of the appellant’s claim were not caused by the accident and therefore that the appellant was not entitled to any damages.