Opinion ID: 486992
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 12 Defendant argues that the district court erred in denying its motion for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the Jones Act claim. This court, in determining whether a directed verdict or j.n.o.v. should have been entered, applies the same test as does the trial court in passing on the original motion. 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Secs. 2536, 2537 (1971). In Jones Act cases, a directed verdict or j.n.o.v. is proper only where there is a complete absence of probative facts supporting the nonmover's position. Theriot v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 742 F.2d 877, 881 (5th Cir. 1984); see also Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.9. 645, 653 (1946); Clark v. Kentucky & Indiana Terminal R.R., 728 F.2d 307, 310 (6th Cir. 1984); Johnson v. Bryant, 671 F.2d 1276, 1279 (11th Cir. 1982); Joyce v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 651 F.2d 676, 682 (10th Cir. 1981). [S]o long as there is evidence from which an inference might rationally be drawn, either about how the accident happened or about whether the defendant's conduct was negligence, it is for the jury to accept or reject that inference, even though the inference may be quite an improbable one and some other inference highly probable. 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, supra, Sec. 2526, at 555. 13 Defendant contends that the record does not contain any probative facts which would support a finding that defendant's negligence caused plaintiff's injury. To the contrary, plaintiff testified that the defective gear box made the vessel much more difficult to stop or slow down and that during the trip upriver the defective gear box stuck causing the M/V Philip W. to enter a lock chamber much faster than it normally would. More importantly, plaintiff testified that as the M/V Philip W. approached the barge train the pilot hollered out, I can't get her to back down; hold on; we're going to hit. Plaintiff further testified that the M/V Philip W. struck the barge ahead of it extremely hard and recoiled downstream, striking the barge on its right. Plaintiff concluded that the failure of the port engine to disengage caused the collision with the barge ahead and contributed to the collision with the barge on the right. 14 Plaintiff's testimony is corroborated by the deposition testimony of the pilot, John Boyd, that the rough bump with the barge on the right was caused, at least in part, by the failure of the port engine to disengage. Boyd testified: 15 And now with running water, which means the river was up a little bit and it gives you more current coming down on you, that also helps us to set in faster than normal. But the thing about the engine, now that was one thing that helped too. I have two things working against me at that time is what I'm saying. 16