Thomas v. Bombardier, Inc. et al
Filing
156
OPINION AND ORDER denying 148 Motion for new trial; denying 154 Motion for new trial. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 12/7/2010. (RKR)
Thomas v. Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc.
Doc. 156
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION CHRISTINA THOMAS, Plaintiff, vs. BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant. ___________________________________ OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on two identical Case No. 2:07-cv-730-FtM-29SPC
Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial (Docs. #148, 154), filed on November 12 and 23, 2010. Defendant filed a Memorandum of Law in Plaintiff seeks a new
Response (Doc. #155) on November 29, 2010. trial pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a).
A Rule 59 motion for a new trial may be granted "for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law 59(a)(1)(A). in federal court; . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P.
Such reasons include a verdict which is against the
weight of the evidence or substantial errors in the admission or rejection of evidence. Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U.S. 243, 251 (1940). Resolution of a motion for a new trial is Montgomery v.
committed to the discretion of the trial court. Noga, 168 F.3d 1282, 1295 (11th Cir. 1999).
The Court has carefully considered the motion, and concludes that it should be denied. "The admissibility of evidence is
Dockets.Justia.com
committed to the broad discretion of the district court, and the decision to exclude certain evidence will be reversed only upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion." Walker v. NationsBank N.A., 53 F.3d 1548, 1554 (11th Cir. 1995); see also Peat, Inc. v. Vanguard Research, Inc., 378 F.3d 1154, 1159 (11th Cir.
2004)(citing Alexander v. Fulton County, Ga., 207 F.3d 1303, 1326 (11th Cir. 2000)). The Court considered most of these issues in
limine (Doc. #117) and at trial, and the Court adheres to its prior rulings and explanations. While plaintiff sought the admission of
17 other accidents, she now asserts that 61 other accidents should have been admitted. (Doc. #96.) Plaintiff's stated basis for the
admission did not previously include the unreasonable dangerousness of the product (Doc. #96.) In light of the lack of foundation
established by plaintiff as to these accidents, the jury's question only highlights the correctness of the Court's ruling, which prevented inadmissible evidence before a naturally inquisitive jury. The Court concludes that plaintiff is not entitled to a new
trial based upon any of the Court's evidentiary rulings. Plaintiff also argues she is entitled to a new trial because the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence. A
district court should grant a motion for new trial when "the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or will result in a miscarriage of justice, even though there may be substantial evidence which would prevent the direction of a verdict. . . .
-2-
Because it is critical that a judge does not merely substitute his judgment for that of the jury, new trials should not be granted on evidentiary grounds unless, at a minimum, the verdict is against the great -- not merely the greater -- weight of the evidence." Lipphardt v. Durango Steakhouse of Brandon, Inc., 267 F.3d 1183, 1186 (11th Cir. 2001)(internal quotations and citation omitted). The evidence verdict. was more than was sufficient to to support or the jury's
The
jury
entitled
believe
disbelieve
plaintiff's evidence, and nothing in its original verdict indicates that it misunderstood either the evidence or the Court's
substantive instructions.
Even if the Court were to re-weigh the
evidence, as plaintiff suggests, the Court would not arrive at any different conclusions than did the jury. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Plaintiff's Motions for New Trial (Docs. #148, 154) are DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this December, 2010.
7th
day of
Copies: Counsel of record
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?