Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Oliveira v. U-Haul Co., 96-1522 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 96-1522 Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 19, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Timothy D. O'Hara, with whom Resmini, O'Hara, Cantor Resmini, _________________ _________________________________, was on brief for appellant. Plaintiff Elaine Oliveira appeals a, Per Curiam.district court ruling denying a new jury trial, see Fed.ries she sustained when struck by a U-Haul vehicle.
USCA1 Opinion









[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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






Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer