Fair v. Allen, 669 F.3d 601

Plaintiffs Iris Fair, Andrew Fair, and Anita Wright were involved in a rear-end collision with Bart Allen of Gator Sign Company; liability was initially determined in their favor on summary judgment, but damages were tried to a jury.
The jury awarded $38,500 total: $21,000 to Iris Fair, $17,500 to Anita Wright, and $0 to Andrew Fair.
Plaintiffs sought a new-trial motion, arguing the district court should have granted relief; the district court denied.
The key dispute centered on which evidentiary standard applied to a new-trial request in a diversity case tried in federal court.
Louisiana law governs the merits of a new-trial decision, including the standard for credibility assessments and to overturn a verdict.
The court affirmed the judgment, upholding the damage award and the trial court’s handling of expert testimony

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Louisiana law or federal standard governs new-trial review.	Fair argues Louisiana law applies for new-trial standards.	Allen/Defense argues federal standard governs in diversity cases.	Louisiana law applies; district court erred if applying federal standard.
Whether Holladay's testimony was admissible and credible.	Holladay biased and his methods unreliable, should be excluded.	Holladay's testimony was probative and properly admitted.	Holladay's testimony properly admitted; it supported the verdict.
Whether the Lucas/Housely presumption applied to causation.	Presumption should establish causal link from accident to injury.	Presumption does not mandate injury severity; evidence controverts it.	Presumption does not apply to render injuries presumptively disabling; credibility evaluated otherwise.
Whether treating-physician credibility was controlling.	Treating physicians should be preferred for credibility.	Treating-physician credibility is weighed but not absolute.	Treating-physician credibility weighs more but did not compel plaintiffs' injury claims.
Whether the district court erred in evaluating evidence and preventing jury from miscredibility.	Court should have overturned based on miscredibility findings.	Jury determinations on credibility are entitled to deference.	Courts defer to jury credibility; no abuse of discretion found.

Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (1996) (standard for new-trial remittitur in state-law claims tried in federal court)
Foradori v. Harris, 523 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 2008) (state-law new-trial standards govern in diversity actions after Gasperini)
Jones v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 870 F.2d 982 (5th Cir. 1989) (federal standard governs sufficiency of evidence in diversity cases)
Munn v. Algee, 924 F.2d 568 (5th Cir. 1991) (abuse-of-discretion review for new-trial denial; federal framing)
Viterbo v. Dow Chemical Co., 826 F.2d 420 (5th Cir. 1987) (expert testimony reliability; weight vs admissibility)
Ernst v. Taylor, 17 So.3d 981 (La.App.3d Cir. 2009) (consideration of bias of expert witness in evaluating admissibility)
Brown v. City of Madisonville, 5 So.3d 874 (La.App.1st Cir. 2008) (evaluation of expert testimony and credibility on appeal)
Housley v. Cerise, 579 So.2d 973 (La.1991) (presumptions and medical evidence impacting causation)