Case ID: f-appx_254/html/0923-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James D. WARREN, Appellant v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.
    No. 06-4759.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Nov. 2, 2007.
    Filed: Nov. 13, 2007.
    Mark F. McKenna, McKenna & Chiodo, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellant.
    John E. Wall, Anthony J. Rash, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellee.
    Before: RENDELL, WEIS, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

James D. Warren appeals from the October 17, 2006 order of the United States District Court denying his motion for a new trial. He argues that the jury’s unanimous verdict in favor of Appellee CSX, is against the weight of the evidence. When reviewing a district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial, we afford great deference to the district court and will not reverse without a showing that the district court clearly abused its discretion. Pryer v. C.O. 3 Slavic, 251 F.3d 448, 453 (3d Cir.2001). Put another way, “new trials because the verdict is against the weight of the evidence are proper only when the record shows that the jury’s verdict resulted in a miscarriage of justice or where the verdict, on the record, cries out to be overturned or shocks our conscience.” Klein v. Hollings, 992 F.2d 1285, 1290 (3d Cir.1993).

We have reviewed this matter extensively and find no possible basis to disturb the verdict or the District Court’s subsequent disposition of the post-trial motions. Overall this case raised classic jury questions and thus the District Court was correct to submit the matter to the jury. The jury unanimously found in favor of the appellee and Warren is bound by the result.