Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Shambria Necole SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant v. KANSA TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C., Defendant - Appellee
While working for the Hammond Daily Star Publishing Company, Inc. (“Hammond Daily Star”), Appellant Shambria Smith was involved in a machinery accident where she lost a portion of her left “pinky” finger. Smith claims that she lost her finger while operating the Kansa 480 Newspaper Inserter (“Kansa Inserter”). She sued both Hammond Daily Star and Kansa Technology, LLC (“Kansa”), alleging—among other things—that the Kansa Inserter was unreasonably dangerous due to a design defect and inadequate warnings. The district court dismissed the claims against Hammond Daily Star based on tort immunity under Louisiana's Workers’ Compensation Act. The claims against Kansa proceeded to a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict for Kansa and a final judgment dismissing Smith's claims.
Thereafter, Smith filed a Motion for Leave to Interview Jurors, claiming that juror interviews were needed to discover potential jury taint. Smith also filed a Motion for Relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), challenging the jury verdict. The district court denied both motions. Smith now appeals.
This court reviews the denial of a Motion for Leave to Interview Jurors and the denial of a Motion for Relief under Rule 60(b) for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Booker, 334 F.3d 406, 416 (5th Cir. 2003) (Motion for Leave to Interview Jurors); Flowers v. S. Reg'l Physician Servs., Inc., 286 F.3d 798, 800 (5th Cir. 2002) (Rule 60(b) Motion). Having carefully reviewed the briefing and pertinent portions of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Therefore, the district court's orders denying Smith's Motion for Leave to Interview Jurors and Smith's Rule 60(b) Motion are AFFIRMED for essentially the same reasons articulated by that court.
FOOTNOTES
PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-30900
Decided: May 01, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)