of damages initially awarded by the jury. Because these errors do not in any way affect the jury’s determination of liability by virtue of the Defendant’s negligence per se, the appropriate remedy is to remand for a new trial as to damages only. On remand, the jury should determine a monetary amount that represents fair, full, and adequate compensation for the harm suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of the Defendant’s negligence. In accordance with FELA, any amount awarded by the jury cannot be reduced with regard to any contributory negligence on the part of Mr. Payne. See 45 U.S.C. § 53. Once the jury returns an award of compensatory damages, the trial judge must review the amount to determine whether it is against the clear weight of the evidence. Blackburn, 2008 WL 2278497, at 1 (<HOLDING>). If the court finds that the amount of damages
holding that the applicable rule of procedure vests a successor judge with judicial discretion to review the jury verdict on a motion for new trial on the ground that such verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence where the record clearly discloses that no question of the credibility of the witnesses or the weight to be given to their testimony will require resolution by him holding that the federal standard requiring the verdict to be against the clear weight of the evidence governs in a fela case 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 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 standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence is the same as the standard for denying a motion for a directed verdict