Posey v. Toys "R" US—Delaware, Inc.
This text of 79 F. App'x 850 (Posey v. Toys "R" US—Delaware, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendant Toys “R” Us appeals from an order of the district court granting in part defendant’s motion for remittitur but denying its motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial. A Tennessee jury awarded plaintiff, Mary F. Posey, damages of $100,000 as a result of back injuries that she sustained after tripping on a piece of metal that protruded from the floor of one of defendant’s stores.
Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in failing to grant a directed verdict for defendant, in failing to set aside the jury’s verdict, in failing to grant a new trial, or in granting only a limited remittitur.
Because the reasoning which supports the rulings of the district court has been articulated by that court, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose.
Accordingly, the order of the district court is affirmed based upon the reasoning employed by the court in its Memorandum filed on January 30, 2002.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
79 F. App'x 850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/posey-v-toys-r-usdelaware-inc-ca6-2003.