Opinion ID: 534822
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motions for Directed Verdict and for Judgment

Text: Notwithstanding the Verdict
11 The judgment against Seahorse was based on negligence under general maritime law. The standard of review of the district court's denial of Seahorse's motion for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is the often-repeated standard announced by the Court in Boeing v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365 (5th Cir.1969) (en banc). We quote this standard at some length because this is a difficult and perhaps borderline case. In Boeing, we held: 12 On motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict the Court should consider all of the evidence--not just that evidence which supports the non-mover's case--but in the light and with all reasonable inferences most favorable to the party opposed to the motion. If the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the Court believes that reasonable [persons] could not arrive at a contrary verdict, granting of the motions is proper. On the other hand, if there is substantial evidence opposed to the motions, that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded [persons] in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motions should be denied, and the case submitted to the jury. A mere scintilla of evidence is insufficient to present a question for the jury. The motions for directed verdict and judgment n.o.v. should not be decided by which side has the better of the case, nor should they be granted only when there is complete absence of probative facts to support a jury verdict. There must be a conflict in substantial evidence to create a jury question. However, it is the function of the jury as the traditional finder of the facts, and not the Court, to weigh conflicting evidence and inferences, and determine the credibility of witnesses. 13 Boeing v. Shipman, 411 F.2d at 374-75. In the present case, therefore, we must decide whether the record contains a conflict in substantial evidence. 14 Boyle testified that when he removed the hose from the mud pit, the sling was tied to the hose with a piece of cord. Boyle said that he simply attached the free end of the sling to the shackle. The sling was tied to the hose, Boyle asserted, because the noosing method can cause the hose to crimp and collapse. 15 Seahorse attempted to impeach Boyle's trial testimony by comparing Boyle's trial testimony with Boyle's prior deposition testimony. Though Boyle claimed at trial that the sling was tied to the hose with cotton cord, in his deposition, the following exchange occurred: 16 Q. How did you hook it onto the hose? 17 Boyle: With a piece of cable that was on the hose. 18 Q. How was the cable secured to the hose? 19 Boyle: I don't know. 20 Q. You attached a sling to the cable, did you not? 21 Boyle: Yes, sir. 22 Q. And you have no recollection of how the cable was attached? 23 Boyle: To the hose, no. 24