Court Opinion

ID: 9899015
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-15 19:00:34.100333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:15.344384
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30750            Document: 00516968289                 Page: 1         Date Filed: 11/15/2023

                United States Court of Appeals
                     for the Fifth Circuit                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                           ____________                                         FILED
                                                                                        November 15, 2023
                                            No. 22-30750
                                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                           ____________                                         Clerk

   Tamiko Smith-Jordan,

                                                                               Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                                   versus

   RPM Pizza, L.L.C.,

                                                   Defendant—Appellee.
                         ______________________________

                         Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                                  USDC No. 2:19-CV-14699
                         ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Smith, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
              On March 23, 2019, LePaul Love, a pizza delivery driver for RPM
   Pizza (“RPM”), 1 was completing a delivery near Howard Avenue in New
   Orleans, Louisiana when he collided with Tamikso Smith-Jordan. Smith-Jor-
   dan later sued RPM Pizza, Love’s employer, arguing that RPM was liable for

              _____________________
   *
       This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
   1
       RPM Pizza is a Domino’s Pizza, LLC (“Domino’s”) franchise.
Case: 22-30750          Document: 00516968289                Page: 2       Date Filed: 11/15/2023

                                            No. 22-30750

   Love’s negligence under a respondeat superior theory of liability. 2 RPM ad-
   mitted that Love was driving in the course of his employment, and the case
   proceeded.
            Evidence presented at trial included testimony regarding the accident,
   as well as Smith-Jordan’s injuries and medical treatment. RPM also intro-
   duced testimony of an accident reconstruction expert, evidence as to any
   “potential bias on the part of [Smith-Jordan’s] treating physician,” and com-
   peting medical testimony. The district court excluded evidence of RPM’s
   hiring, training, supervision, and employment policies; Love’s employment
   file; and the New Orleans’ Police Department Officer’s initial accident re-
   port (in favor of live testimony). The court allowed RPM to present evidence
   related to Smith-Jordan’s legal counsel, medical providers, medical pay-
   ments and related arrangements, mitigation efforts, and her future medical
   needs.
            After the six-day trial, the jury unanimously found Love bore no fault
   for the accident and thus declined to award Smith-Jordan damages. Smith-
   Jordan moved for a new trial, which the district court denied.
            Before this Court, Smith-Jordan appeals the judgment, the trial rul-
   ings, and the order denying the motion for a new trial.

            _____________________
   2
    Smith-Jordan also asserted claims against Love (individually) and Domino’s, but these claims were
   voluntarily dismissed before trial.

                                                   2
Case: 22-30750          Document: 00516968289                  Page: 3        Date Filed: 11/15/2023

                                             No. 22-30750

                                                    I
            A district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial “will be affirmed
   unless there is a clear showing of an absolute absence of evidence to support
   the jury’s verdict, thus indicating that the trial court had abused its discretion
   in refusing to find the jury’s verdict contrary to the great weight of the evi-
   dence.” 3
            We have reviewed the briefs, the applicable law, and pertinent parts
   of the record; we have also heard oral argument. The judgment is
   AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons stated in the district court’s “Order
   and Reasons” issued on October 28, 2022, denying Smith-Jordan’s motion
   for a new trial.

            _____________________
   3
    Vital v. Nat’l Oilwell Varco, L.P., 685 F. App’x 355, 359 (5th Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (per curiam)
   (quoting Lane v. R.A. Sims, Jr., Inc., 241 F.3d 439, 444 (5th Cir. 2001)).

                                                    3