Can a jury verdict regarding question of fact be appealed? If so, what consequences might the legal system experience?

Any jury verdict can be appealed including those based on a "question of fact." The real question should be whether the appellate court would reverse a jury verdict on this basis. The answer to this second question is that if the only issue being appealed is that a different jury could have reached a different conclusion then it is very unlikely that the appellate court would reverse the verdict. In most cases to win an appeal there must be some other basis for reversal other than a claim that the jury got it wrong. Some examples in which a case could be reversed on appeal include, but are not limited to: irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or prevailing party or any order of the court or referee or abuse of discretion by which the party was prevented from having a fair trial; misconduct of the jury or prevailing party; accident or surprise, which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against; (4) excessive damages, appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice; that the verdict, report, or decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence or is contrary to law; error of law occurring at the trial and objected to by the losing party. I do not understand what you are asking by your second question, "If so, what consequences might the legal system experience?" Although there are some cases in which judges decide the facts, such as workers' compensation cases, basically our justice system is set up so that juries, rather than judges, decide the facts in a case. If appellate courts routinely reversed jury verdicts when the only issue is that the appellate judges just thought the jury got it wrong we would effectively be dismantling the jury system as we know it. Jury verdicts would be less meaningful.

See a lawyer who specializes in school law.

First, anyone can appeal anything. The question is whether it is a viable appeal. Jury verdicts are appealed all of the time. The standards of proof to overturn something on appeal depend on what the appeal is for. Some appeals have a de novo review where the appeals court looks at the matter anew. Sometimes, you have to find an abuse of discretion, which is a very high standard.

A jury verdict can be appealed. If the claimed error is an alleged misinterpretation of fact, the Court of Appeal would in most instances, give deference to the finder of fact's determination (the jury) as they sat through the trial and heard the evidence and were in the best position to judge the facts.

In most states, one cannot appeal a jury verdict regarding questions of fact decided by the jury. What I mean by that is you cannot ask an appellate court to weigh the evidence and make its own determination of the facts in question. Rather, you can only appeal questions of law that the judge rules on during the trial. In a trial, the judge does not determine issues regarding the facts that are disputed (such as who ran the red light, is the Plaintiff really hurt, or is he faking, did the defendant soot the victim, or is the eye witness mistaken). The facts of the case are decided by the jury. The judge makes rulings on legal questions, such a what evidence should be admitted, and what evidence should be excludes. A litigant is only allowed to appeal the judge's rulings on questions of law. Examples might include the Judge's ruling to admit certain evidence over the objection of a party, or a Judge's decision to exclude evidence; the Judge's jury charge or instructions to the jury (that is you might argue that the judge instructed the jury incorrectly on the law); the Judge's decision to deny summary judgment or to deny a directed verdict. These last two (summary judgment and directed verdict) are similar to asking the appellate court to make a decision on questions of fact based on weighing the evidence. In civil cases, a party can bring a motion for summary judgment. Both sides present their evidence to the judge in the form of sworn witness statements and provide any physical evidence the parties intend to introduce at trial, such as photographs or other documents. The side bringing the Motion for Summary Judgment must show that based on all of the evidence, taking the evidence in a light most favorable to the other party, there is no question of fact for a jury to determine. By taking the evidence in a light most favorable to the other side, where witnesses differ on the facts, the judge must assume the witness who favor the non-moving party are telling the truth. Essentially, the court must find, based on the facts that the parties agree upon, there are no facts supporting the non-moving parties case. An example might be where a plaintiff is suing a defendant for damages from a wreck and all witness say the Plaintiff ran the red light, even the plaintiff says he ran the red light, but the Plaintiff still maintains it was the defendant's fault because the defendant had a suspended license, the court could grant summary judgment to the Defendant because having a suspended license is not evidence that the Defendant was at fault in causing the accident. A motion for directed verdict is similar. At the end of Plaintiff's case in a civil trial, or at the end of the State's case in a criminal trial, the other side can make a motion for a directed verdict in favor of the defendant, which the court can grant only if, based on the evidence taken in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff, or the state, that there is no question of fact for the jury to determine. If parties were allowed to appeal juries' decisions regarding questions of fact, it would undermine our system of trial by jury to such a degree that there essentially would no longer be a right to a trial by jury. Ultimately, questions of fact would be determined by judges. This is because jury verdicts would be mere recommendations that appellate courts (judges) could review an overturn. In any case, the losing party could submit the evidence to an appellate judge, or a panel of appellate judges, to weigh and make their own determination. This is why you can appeal only rulings on questions of law, not questions of fact.

Generally an appellate court can reverse a jury 's finding on a question of fact only if it determines that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial judge's submission of the question of fact to the jury in the first place.? Appellate courts are fond of disavowing any power to "invade the province of the jury."? The idea is that if courts are allowed to substitute their own judgment for the jury's judgment on matters of fact (as opposed to matters of law), there might as well be no right to jury trial at all, and an important aspect of government "of the people, by the people, for the people" will disappear.

Only if the verdict is against the "great weight of the evidence."

You can certainly appeal. However, most appellate courts will opine that it is the jury prerogative to find facts, and such findings will not normally be set aside except for a manifest abuse of some sort.

An appeal is taken because there is error in the trial. An appeallate court will not overturn a jury's determination of fact unless it is so clearly unsupported by evidence that it is deemed arbitrary and capricious.

You can only appeal erroneous rulings of law by a judge, not findings of fact by a jury.