Warren v. CSX Transportation, Inc. , 254 F. App'x 923 ( 2007 )

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-13-2007
Warren v. CSX Trans Inc
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-4759
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Warren v. CSX Trans Inc" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 221.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/221
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 06-4759
___________
JAMES D. WARREN,
Appellant
v.
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 05-cv-00529)
District Judge: The Honorable Joy F. Conti
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 2, 2007
Before: RENDELL, WEIS, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: November 13, 2007)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
James D. Warren appeals from the October 17, 2006 order of the United States
District Court denying his motion for a new trial. He argues that the jury's unanimous
verdict in favor of Appellee CSX, is against the weight of the evidence. When reviewing
a district court's denial of a motion for a new trial, we afford great deference to the district
court and will not reverse without a showing that the district court clearly abused its
discretion. Pryer v. C.O. 3 Slavic, 251 F.3d 448, 453 (3d Cir. 2001). Put another way,
“new trials because the verdict is against the weight of the evidence are proper only when
the record shows that the jury's verdict resulted in a miscarriage of justice or where the
verdict, on the record, cries out to be overturned or shocks our conscience.” Klein v.
Hollings, 992 F.2d 1285, 1290 (3d Cir. 1993).
We have reviewed this matter extensively and find no possible basis to disturb the
verdict or the District Court's subsequent disposition of the post-trial motions. Overall this
case raised classic jury questions and thus the District Court was correct to submit the
matter to the jury. The jury unanimously found in favor of the appellee and Warren is
bound by the result.
2