Opinion ID: 467484
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion for New Trial on Damages

Text: 9 Texaco next argues that the district court erred by denying its motion for new trial on damages. 1 We recently reiterated the appropriate standard to review a district court's ruling on a motion for new trial: The decision to grant or deny a motion for new trial generally is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed unless there is an abuse of that discretion or misapprehension of the law. Dixon v. International Harvester Company, 754 F.2d 573, 586 (5th Cir.1985) (citing Shows v. Jamison Bedding, Inc., 671 F.2d 927, 930 (5th Cir.1982); Evers v. Equifax, Inc., 650 F.2d 793, 796 (5th Cir.1981)). We also pointed out that [t]his deferential standard of review applies especially in cases in which motions for new trials have been denied. Id. (citing Shows, 671 F.2d at 930; Evers, 650 F.2d at 796). This is so because 10 [d]eference to the trial judge, who has had an opportunity to observe the witnesses and to consider the evidence in the context of a living trial rather than upon a cold record, operates in harmony with deference to the jury's determination of the weight of the evidence and the constitutional allocation to the jury of questions of fact. 11 Shows, 671 F.2d at 930 (citations omitted). 12 As we noted above, Knight introduced evidence from which the jury could have reasonably concluded that he would suffer significant lost earnings in the future. Moreover, as will be discussed below, the record also supports a substantial award for Knight's physical pain, suffering, and disability. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying Texaco's motion for new trial. 2