King v. Fuel Services Inc

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                           FIFTH CIRCUIT

                            ____________

                            No. 96-31289
                            ____________


          SAM AUGUSTINE KING,

                                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          HAROLD M WHEELAHAN, III, A PROFESSIONAL LAW
          CORPORATION,

                                Intervenor - Appellee,

          versus

          FUEL SERVICES (formerly Dantzler Boat & Barge
          Company); BLUE CHIP MV; DANTZLER BOAT & BARGE
          COMPANY DIVISION; CHEVRON USA INC,

                                Defendants - Appellees.


          Appeal from the United States District Court
              for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                          (93-CV-3676-K)
                        December 11, 1997

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Sam Augustine King appeals from a jury verdict finding that

Dantzler Boat & Barge Company was not liable for injuries King

sustained while working as a seaman on board the MV BLUE CHIP, that

King was 50% at fault for his injuries, and that the MV BLUE CHIP


     *
          Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
47.5.4.
was seaworthy at the time of the accident.           King also appeals the

jury’s award of $2,850 in damages, assessed against Chevron, U.S.A.

In support of his appeal, King argues that both the jury’s damage

award and the findings relevant to this appeal are not supported by

sufficient evidence.

     We will not reverse a jury verdict concerning liability or

damages   unless,   viewing   all   the   evidence    in   the   light   most

favorable to the verdict, we can say that “no reasonable jury”

could have rendered the verdict at issue.        See Myers v. Griffen-

Alexander Drilling Co., 910 F.2d 1252, 1254 (5th Cir. 1990). Here,

however, the record indicates that ample evidence supports the

jury’s verdict both as to liability and damages.

     King points us to other evidence, also contained in the

record, that is contrary to the verdict. Nevertheless, we will not

invade the province of the jury by reweighing the evidence or

redetermining the credibility of those who testified at trial. See

Wood v. Diamond M Drilling Co., 691 F.2d 1165, 1168 (5th Cir.

1982).

     AFFIRMED.
King v. Fuel Services Inc

Related Cases
