Warrington v. MO Fabrctd Prod Co

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: May 20, 2003
• Docket: 02-60855
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D May 20, 2003 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Charles R. Fulbruge III FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Clerk _______________________

No. 02-60855 Summary Calendar _______________________

LEON WARRINGTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MISSOURI FABRICATED PRODUCTS COMPANY; GLEASON CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellees. __________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi Lower Docket No. 2:01-CV-92

_________________________________________________________________

Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In November 1998, a defective tire rim manufactured by

the appellees injured Leon Warrington’s right thumb while he was

inflating a tire. The district court instructed the jury, under

Mississippi law, on both strict liability and comparative

negligence. The jury assessed Warrington’s total damages at

* 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. $60,000 and assessed the appellees and Warrington each at fault for

50% of the damages. The district court ordered Warrington to

recover $30,000 plus interest from the appellees and denied

Warrington’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on the

comparative negligence issue. Warrington appeals the district

court’s ruling on his motion for JMOL, arguing that there is

insufficient evidence to support a finding that he overinflated the

tire.

This court reviews a district court’s ruling on a motion

for JMOL de novo. Industrias Magromer Cueros y Pieles S.A. v. La.

Bayou Furs, Inc., 293 F.3d 912, 918 (5th Cir. 2002). Judgment as

a matter of law is proper when “a party has been fully heard on an

issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a

reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 50(a). “In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we

must draw all reasonable inferences and resolve all credibility

issues in favor of the nonmoving party.” Klumpe v. IBP, Inc., 309

F.3d 279, 281 (5th Cir. 2002). “When the jury has found for the

nonmovant on the disputed issue, we will not overturn the verdict

unless the facts and inferences point so strongly and

overwhelmingly in the movant’s favor that reasonable jurors could

not reach a contrary conclusion.” Id. at 281-82 (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted).

2 Here, the district court properly denied Warrington’s

motion for JMOL on the issue of comparative negligence. Drawing

all reasonable inferences and resolving all credibility issues in

favor of the appellees, a reasonable jury could have concluded, as

the jury did in this case, that Warrington was negligent in

overinflating the tire. The district court judgment is therefore

affirmed.