Court Opinion

ID: 9399411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-02 21:00:35.071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:56.246256
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2374      Doc: 30         Filed: 06/01/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-2374

        CHARLENE JANSON,

                            Plaintiff − Appellee,

                     v.

        REITHOFFER SHOWS, INC.,

                            Defendant – Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (1:19−cv−00079−DLB)

        Submitted: October 5, 2022                                           Decided: June 1, 2023

        Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: David A. Skomba, Miranda D. Russell, FRANKLIN & PROKOPIK, P.C.,
        Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.   Michael J. Winkelman, MCCARTHY,
        WINKELMAN, MESTER, OFFUTT, LLP, Lanham, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2374      Doc: 30          Filed: 06/01/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Reithoffer Shows, Inc. appeals the district court’s denial of its Rule 50 motions for

        judgment as a matter of law. The jury found that Reithoffer’s negligence proximately

        caused Charlene Janson’s injury.        And although the jury also found Janson was

        contributorily negligent, it awarded her damages, finding that Reithoffer had the last clear

        chance to avoid her injury but failed to do so. Before the case was submitted to the jury,

        Reithoffer argued that there was insufficient evidence to submit the questions whether

        Reithoffer’s negligence proximately caused Janson’s injury and whether Reithoffer had the

        last clear chance to avoid the injury. After the district court entered judgment, Reithoffer

        renewed its motion on last-clear-chance grounds. The district court denied those motions.

               We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, for the

        reasons identified in the district court’s decision, see Janson v. Reithoffer Shows, Inc., No.

        DLB-19-79, 2021 WL 5280894 (D. Md. Nov. 12, 2021), we affirm. And we dispense with

        oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the

        materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                         AFFIRMED

                                                      2