Price v. Natl RR Psngr Corp

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: February 20, 2002
• Docket: 01-50420
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-50420 Summary Calendar

WILLIAM PRICE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, doing business as Amtrak; CENTRAL TEXAS REFUSE INC,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-00-CV-304-SS -------------------- February 19, 2002 Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William Price appeals the jury’s damages award in his

negligence action against National Railroad Passenger Corporation

and Central Texas Refuse, Inc. Price argues that the district

court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial.

Price contends that the damages amount was inadequate and was

motivated by racism.

In reviewing whether the district court abused its discretion

in denying a motion for new trial because of inadequate damages,

this court reviews whether there is an absolute absence of evidence

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 01-50420 -2-

to support the jury’s verdict. See Hidden Oaks Ltd. v. City of

Austin, 138 F.3d 1036, 1051 (5th Cir. 1998).

After reviewing the briefs and pertinent record we find that

the evidence presented at Price’s trial supported the jury’s award

of damages; therefore the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying Price’s motion for a new trial. Shows v.

Jamison Bedding, Inc., 671 F.2d 927, 934 (5th Cir. 1982); see also

Young v. City of New Orleans, 751 F.2d 794, 798-99 (5th Cir. 1985).

Price’s contention that the jury’s award of damages was

motivated by racism will not be addressed because Price did not

raise the argument in the district court, nor has Price adequately

briefed the argument on appeal. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,

224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

For the foregoing reasons the ruling of the district court is

AFFIRMED.