Cf. State Farm Mut. Auto. Insurance Co. v. Campbell, — U.S. -, -, 123 S.Ct. 1513, 1519, 155 L.Ed.2d 585 (2003) (“Compensatory damages ‘are intended to redress the concrete loss that the plaintiff has suffered by reason of the defendant’s wrongful conduct.’”) (quoting Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424, 432, 121 S.Ct. 1678, 149 L.Ed.2d 674 (2001)). The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit succinctly explained the importance of a jury’s evaluation of a plaintiffs emotional distress: “A jury’s award of damages stands unless it is grossly excessive or shocking to the conscience.” O’Rourke v. City of Providence, 235 F.3d 713, 733 (1st Cir.2001) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Hetzel v. County of Prince William, 89 F.3d 169, 171 (4th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Courts defer to a jury’s award of damages for
holding that the federal standard requiring the verdict to be against the clear weight of the evidence governs in a fela case holding that a district court must compare and weigh the opposing evidence and it must set aside the verdict if it determines that the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence holding that the district court should grant a motion for a new trial when the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or will result in a miscarriage of justice emphasis added holding that the court of appeals must consider and weigh all of the evidence and may only set aside the finding if the evidence is so weak or if the finding is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that it is clearly wrong and unjust holding that a jurys award of compensatory damages will be set aside on the grounds of excessiveness only if the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or will result in a miscarriage of justice