C. Messick v. Patrol Helicopters Inc.

MEMORANDUM

Patrol Helicopters, Inc. appeals the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict finding the defendant negligent. We affirm.

“We review a district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) for an abuse of discretion.” Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 728 (9th Cir.2007). Because the defendant filed a motion for new trial to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, it was not required to first file a motion for judgment as a matter of law. See Freund v. Nycomed Amersham, 847 F.3d 752, 765 (9th Cir.2003). Therefore, the defendant did not waive its right to appeal this issue.

Testimony that Darrell Bowman decided to pass Daniel Lyons’s truck without slowing did not constitute clear and undisputed evidence that Bowman was negligent. The jury heard testimony that Bowman was paying attention, and that he saw no reason to slow down during his passing maneuver. Thus, the record contains support for the jury’s verdict and the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Evidentiary rulings by the trial court are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Rent-A-Ctr.,…