Warrington v. MO Fabrctd Prod Co ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 20, 2003
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Charles R. Fulbruge III
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Clerk
_______________________
No. 02-60855
Summary Calendar
_______________________
LEON WARRINGTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MISSOURI FABRICATED PRODUCTS COMPANY;
GLEASON CORPORATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
__________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
Lower Docket No. 2:01-CV-92
_________________________________________________________________
Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In November 1998, a defective tire rim manufactured by
the appellees injured Leon Warrington’s right thumb while he was
inflating a tire. The district court instructed the jury, under
Mississippi law, on both strict liability and comparative
negligence. The jury assessed Warrington’s total damages at
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
$60,000 and assessed the appellees and Warrington each at fault for
50% of the damages. The district court ordered Warrington to
recover $30,000 plus interest from the appellees and denied
Warrington’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on the
comparative negligence issue. Warrington appeals the district
court’s ruling on his motion for JMOL, arguing that there is
insufficient evidence to support a finding that he overinflated the
tire.
This court reviews a district court’s ruling on a motion
for JMOL de novo. Industrias Magromer Cueros y Pieles S.A. v. La.
Bayou Furs, Inc., 293 F.3d 912, 918 (5th Cir. 2002). Judgment as
a matter of law is proper when “a party has been fully heard on an
issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a
reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 50(a). “In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we
must draw all reasonable inferences and resolve all credibility
issues in favor of the nonmoving party.” Klumpe v. IBP, Inc., 309
F.3d 279, 281 (5th Cir. 2002). “When the jury has found for the
nonmovant on the disputed issue, we will not overturn the verdict
unless the facts and inferences point so strongly and
overwhelmingly in the movant’s favor that reasonable jurors could
not reach a contrary conclusion.” Id. at 281-82 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
2
Here, the district court properly denied Warrington’s
motion for JMOL on the issue of comparative negligence. Drawing
all reasonable inferences and resolving all credibility issues in
favor of the appellees, a reasonable jury could have concluded, as
the jury did in this case, that Warrington was negligent in
overinflating the tire. The district court judgment is therefore
affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
3