Smith-Jordan v. RPM Pizza ( 2023 )

Case: 22-30750 Document: 00516968289 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/15/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
November 15, 2023
No. 22-30750
Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
Tamiko Smith-Jordan,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
RPM Pizza, L.L.C.,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:19-CV-14699
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Smith, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
On March 23, 2019, LePaul Love, a pizza delivery driver for RPM
Pizza (“RPM”), 1 was completing a delivery near Howard Avenue in New
Orleans, Louisiana when he collided with Tamikso Smith-Jordan. Smith-Jor-
dan later sued RPM Pizza, Love’s employer, arguing that RPM was liable for
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
1
RPM Pizza is a Domino’s Pizza, LLC (“Domino’s”) franchise.
Case: 22-30750 Document: 00516968289 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/15/2023
No. 22-30750
Love’s negligence under a respondeat superior theory of liability. 2 RPM ad-
mitted that Love was driving in the course of his employment, and the case
proceeded.
Evidence presented at trial included testimony regarding the accident,
as well as Smith-Jordan’s injuries and medical treatment. RPM also intro-
duced testimony of an accident reconstruction expert, evidence as to any
“potential bias on the part of [Smith-Jordan’s] treating physician,” and com-
peting medical testimony. The district court excluded evidence of RPM’s
hiring, training, supervision, and employment policies; Love’s employment
file; and the New Orleans’ Police Department Officer’s initial accident re-
port (in favor of live testimony). The court allowed RPM to present evidence
related to Smith-Jordan’s legal counsel, medical providers, medical pay-
ments and related arrangements, mitigation efforts, and her future medical
needs.
After the six-day trial, the jury unanimously found Love bore no fault
for the accident and thus declined to award Smith-Jordan damages. Smith-
Jordan moved for a new trial, which the district court denied.
Before this Court, Smith-Jordan appeals the judgment, the trial rul-
ings, and the order denying the motion for a new trial.
_____________________
2
Smith-Jordan also asserted claims against Love (individually) and Domino’s, but these claims were
voluntarily dismissed before trial.
2
Case: 22-30750 Document: 00516968289 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/15/2023
No. 22-30750
I
A district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial “will be affirmed
unless there is a clear showing of an absolute absence of evidence to support
the jury’s verdict, thus indicating that the trial court had abused its discretion
in refusing to find the jury’s verdict contrary to the great weight of the evi-
dence.” 3
We have reviewed the briefs, the applicable law, and pertinent parts
of the record; we have also heard oral argument. The judgment is
AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons stated in the district court’s “Order
and Reasons” issued on October 28, 2022, denying Smith-Jordan’s motion
for a new trial.
_____________________
3
Vital v. Nat’l Oilwell Varco, L.P., 685 F. App’x 355, 359 (5th Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (per curiam)
(quoting Lane v. R.A. Sims, Jr., Inc., 241 F.3d 439, 444 (5th Cir. 2001)).
3