[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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