Thornton v. Diamond Offshore Management Co.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
June 12, 2009

No. 08-30807 Charles R. Fulbruge III
Summary Calendar Clerk

RONNIE J THORNTON

Plaintiff-Appellee
v.

DIAMOND OFFSHORE MANAGEMENT COMPANY; DIAMOND
OFFSHORE SERVICES COMPANY

Defendants-Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
2:07-CV-1839

Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Following a jury award in favor of Plaintiff Ronnie Thornton, Defendants
Diamond Offshore Management Company and Diamond Offshore Services
Company moved for a new trial or remittitur. The district court denied the
motion, and the Defendants now appeal. The Defendants contend that they
were entitled to relief from the jury award because (1) the award of $2.5 million

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
 No. 08-30807

in general damages was disproportionate and excessive; (2) the award of
$563,343 in lost future wages was not supported by the evidence; and (3) the
jury’s allocation of fault was not supported by the evidence.
“The decision to grant or deny a motion for new trial or remittitur rests in
the sound discretion of the trial judge; that exercise of discretion can be set aside
only upon a clear showing of abuse.” Eiland v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 58 F.3d
176, 183 (5th Cir. 1995); see Foradori v. Harris, 523 F.3d 477, 504 (5th Cir.
2008). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the Defendants were not
entitled to a new trial or remittitur for essentially the reasons stated in the
district court’s Order and Reasons. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse
its discretion.
AFFIRMED.

2