Grudis v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1128
MICHAEL J. GRUDIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
versus
J. B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INCORPORATED;
JAY C. FORD,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Magistrate Judge. (CA-
01-2457-JKB)
Submitted: January 28, 2005 Decided: February 24, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Dirk Schwenk, LOCHNER AND SCHWENK, LLC, Annapolis, Maryland, for
Appellant. Thomas A. McManus, SASSCER, CLAGETT & BUCHER, Upper
Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Michael J. Grudis filed this personal injury action
against J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., and its employee, Jay C. Ford.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company joined as a Plaintiff in the
action in order to protect its subrogation interests as an insurer
of Grudis. Grudis appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying
Plaintiffs’ motion for judgment as a matter of law and the
magistrate judge’s refusal to instruct the jury to consider the
“last clear chance” doctrine. For the following reasons, we affirm
the magistrate judge’s order denying Grudis and Liberty Mutual’s
motion for judgment as a matter of law and affirm the jury verdict
in favor of Ford and J.B. Hunt.
Following trial, the jury found that Defendant Ford was
not negligent in the events leading to Grudis’ injury. The
magistrate judge entered an order reflecting the jury’s verdict in
favor of Ford and J.B. Hunt. Because the evidence does not support
Grudis’ argument that “there is no legally sufficient evidentiary
basis” for the jury's verdict, Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1), we affirm
the magistrate judge’s denial of the motion for judgment as a
matter of law.
Grudis also contends that the magistrate judge erred in
declining to instruct the jury on Maryland’s “last clear chance”
doctrine with respect to Ford’s alleged negligence. Because the
source of the federal court’s jurisdiction over the state law tort
- 3 -
action was diversity of citizenship, the rule of Erie R.R. Co. v.
Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938), requires the application of the
law of Maryland, the forum state, to questions of substantive law.
On procedural issues, however, federal law governs. Hanna v.
Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 465 (1965). The decision of whether to give
a jury instruction and the content of an instruction are reviewed
for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Abbas, 74 F.3d
506, 513 (4th Cir. 1996).
Under Maryland law, the doctrine of last clear chance
permits a contributorily negligent plaintiff to recover damages
from a negligent defendant if each of the following elements is
satisfied: (i) the defendant is negligent; (ii) the plaintiff is
contributorily negligent; and (iii) the plaintiff makes “a showing
of something new or sequential, which affords the defendant a fresh
opportunity (of which he fails to avail himself) to avert the
consequences of his original negligence.” Liscombe v. Potomac
Edison Co., 495 A.2d 838, 847 (Md. 1985) (citations omitted). On
review of the record, we conclude the magistrate judge did not
abuse his discretion in finding that the evidence did not support
an instruction to the jury on the last clear chance doctrine.
Accordingly, we affirm the verdict in favor of Ford and
J.B. Hunt. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED