IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-20576
(Summary Calendar)
MARION “BILL” MERICLE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(CA-H-94-807)
April 30, 1996
Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Marion “Bill” Mericle appeals from the
take-nothing judgment as a matter of law rendered by the district
court following the close of Plaintiff’s case. Mericle complains
that, in his jury trial, the district court erred in finding that
Mericle’s principal third-party witness was not credible and in
excluding certain documentary evidence which Mericle sought to
adduce.
We have carefully reviewed the record in this case and the
applicable law and arguments of counsel as set forth in their
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
respective briefs to this court, and find no reversible error on
the part of the district court.
In reviewing a grant of judgment as a matter of law, we must
consider all of the evidence presented with all reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. London v.
MAC Corp. of America, 44 F.2d 316, 318 (5th Cir. 1995). The motion
is properly granted if the facts and inferences point so strongly
in favor of the movant that a rational jury could not arrive at a
contrary verdict. Id. If there is substantial evidence of such
quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded jurors might
reach a different conclusion -- then the motion should have been
denied. Id. There was ample evidence from which a jury could
conclude that there was an alcohol spill on the floor where Mericle
fell. However, the district court held that there was no evidence
that Wal-Mart had actual knowledge of the spill or that the spill
had been on the floor long enough that Wal-Mart would have
discovered it with the exercise of reasonable prudence. We agree.
Finally, the district court’s evidentiary rulings are afforded
considerable deference under the abuse of discretion standard of
review. Johnson v. Ford Motor Co., 988 F.2d 573, 578 (5th Cir.
1993). We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s
evidentiary rulings.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court
is, in all respects,
AFFIRMED.