Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 12-1809
MARGARET M. AARON,
Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
KROGER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP I,
DEFENDANT - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:10-cv-00606-RGD-FBS)
Submitted:
November 6, 2012
Decided:
PER CURIAM
Margaret M. Aaron appeals from the district courts
judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of Kroger
Supermarket, and its order denying her motion for a new trial.
Aaron sued Kroger for injuries she sustained in a slip and fall
at one of their stores.
and Aaron moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59.
On appeal, Aaron renews her arguments from the motion for a new
trial that the trial judges interventions into her case and
comments to the jury compromised her right to a fair trial and
that
the
district
court
improperly
instructed
the
jury.
We
affirm.
We review a district courts denial of a motion for a
new
trial
based
on
partiality
or
bias
for
abuse
of
discretion.
fair,
as
distinguished
from
perfect,
2001) (quoting United States v. Parodi, 703 F.2d 768, 776 (4th
Cir. 1983)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Upon review of the record, we find that the district
courts comments did not result in the necessary prejudice to
2
491
F.2d
1276,
1278
(4th
Cir.
1974)
(citing
United
The
evidence
was
properly
presented
without
undue
delay.
next
argues
that
the
district
courts
that
adequately
the
district
distinguish
between
discretion.
2010).
proposed
courts
the
instruction
condition
and
Aaron
did
the
not
hazard
jury
instruction
for
abuse
of
given did not misstate the law and that the district court did
not
abuse
its
discretion
by
concluding
that
the
distinction
person
would
not
anticipate
any
danger
from
it.
United
Aaron
trial.
cites
We
to
therefore
no
authority
review
that
for
plain
indicates
error.
that
the
language
she
Thus,
contentions
the
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED