Fifth Circuit: Plaintiff’s Argument Misunderstands Nature of Review
In a recent unpublished decision, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals explained the nature of its review of the denial of a motion for new trial. The plaintiff in the underlying case was injured while working on a commercial fishing vessel. He filed a Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness claim against his employer. After a three-day jury trial, a unanimous verdict was returned in favor the employer. The district court subsequently denied the plaintiff’s motion for new trial, finding the verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence. The plaintiff appealed the district court’s denial of his motion for new trial.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit noted several pieces of evidence in the record to support the jury’s verdict. For example, the vessel’s captain testified that the plaintiff had violated company policy by attempting to moor the vessel while it was still moving. The captain also testified that immediately following the accident, the plaintiff had remarked that it was a result of his own “dumb, stupid mistake.” Further, the plaintiff had given a statement that the accident was not caused by an unseaworthy condition of the vessel.
The court commented in a footnote that the plaintiff seemed to concede that there was evidence to support the verdict. However, the plaintiff argued that the evidence was not credible and should be disregarded. The court took this argument as an indication that the plaintiff misunderstood the nature of its review. The court explained that it was bound to accept the evidence in support of the verdict as true and that its task was to decide whether there is an “absolute absence” of evidence, not second guess the credibility determinations of the jury. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for new trial.


