Lisa Learmonth v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 631 F.3d 724

Learmonth was seriously injured in a collision between her car and Sears van; liability contested at trial.
Key liability issue: which driver had right-of-way at the intersection with a stop sign on Highway 485 but not on Highway 15.
Eight witnesses testified; there was conflicting testimony about the vehicles' final positions and McClelland’s actions after the crash.
Jury awarded $4 million total: about $1.2M past/future earnings, $573k medical expenses, and $2.2M non-economic damages.
The district court denied a new trial but remitted non-economic damages to $1 million under Mississippi’s cap; Learmonth challenged constitutionality.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial errors warrant a new trial	Learmonth contends improper comments and evidence biased the verdict.	Sears asserts no manifest injustice; objections cured by rulings and jury instructions.	No abuse of discretion; no manifest injustice.
Whether remittitur of non-economic damages was proper	Remittitur undervalues her severe, life-long injuries.	Damages were excessive and governed by state cap and weight of evidence.	District court not abused; remittitur approved under state standard.
Whether Mississippi cap on noneconomic damages violates state constitution	Cap violates right to jury, separation of powers, and access to courts.	No constitutional conflict; cap aligns with controlling law.	Question certified to Mississippi Supreme Court.

Foradori v. Harris, 523 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for new trial reviews)
Whitehead v. Food Max of Miss., Inc., 163 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 1998) (federal trial procedures govern in diversity cases)
Westbrook v. General Tire and Rubber Co., 754 F.2d 1233 (5th Cir. 1985) (cure of improper arguments by admonition/jury charge)
Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951 (5th Cir. 1990) (improper comments and preservation considerations)
United States v. Thompson, 482 F.3d 781 (5th Cir. 2007) (opinions and conclusions from counsel may be drawn from evidence)
United States v. Fusco, 748 F.2d 996 (5th Cir. 1984) (extent of Rule 608(b) applicability)
Salinas v. O’Neill, 286 F.3d 827 (5th Cir. 2002) (use of post-remittitur amount in review of excessiveness)
Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1996) (standard for remittitur in diversity cases)
Lebron v. United States, 279 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2002) (departure from prior damages awards when unique facts exist)
Vogler v. Blackmore, 352 F.3d 150 (5th Cir. 2003) (fact-specific maximum recovery considerations)
Wells Fargo Armored Service Corp. v. Turner, 543 So.2d 154 (Miss. 1989) (state cap and loss of earnings context)