Oliveira v. U-Haul Co. ( 1996 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]





                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT





        No. 96-1522



                                   ELAINE OLIVEIRA,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                              U-HAUL COMPANY OF INDIANA,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.




____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND



                     [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
___________________




____________________



                                        Before



                                 Cyr, Circuit Judge,
_____________



                     Aldrich and Campbell, Senior Circuit Judges.
_____________________




____________________







             Timothy D. O'Hara, with whom Resmini, O'Hara, Cantor & Resmini
_________________            _________________________________

        was on brief for appellant.

             Jeffrey C. Schreck, with whom Brown, Rudnick, Freed & Gesmer was
__________________            ______________________________

        on brief for appellee.






____________________



                                  December 17, 1996


____________________

































                    Per  Curiam.    Plaintiff  Elaine  Oliveira  appeals  a
Per  Curiam.
___________



          district court ruling denying  a new jury trial, see Fed. R. Civ.
___



          P.  59, on  her  tort claim  against  U-Haul Company  of  Indiana



          alleging  that U-Haul was jointly  and severally liable for inju-



          ries she  sustained when struck by a U-Haul vehicle.  As the jury



          found  that the driver was not negligent, judgment entered for U-



          Haul.  Oliveira claims the verdict went against the weight of the



          evidence.



                    We review the denial of a motion for new trial only for



          abuse of discretion.  See Lamas v. Borras, 16 F.3d  473, 477 (1st
___ _____    ______



          Cir.  1994) (no  abuse of  discretion unless  "the verdict  is so



          clearly against  the weight  of the evidence  as to  amount to  a



          manifest miscarriage  of justice.").   A  thorough review of  the



          trial  record discloses  sufficient evidentiary  support  for the



          verdict.  Since there was a genuine factual dispute as to whether



          the driver's  reaction time  demonstrated negligence,  the jury's



          verdict cannot  be considered a manifest  miscarriage of justice.



          See id.
___ ___



                    Affirmed.
________

































                                          2