ME 127, ¶ 25, 818 A.2d 995, 1003. “The burden is on the moving party to show that the adverse verdict is clearly and manifestly wrong.” Schiavi v. Goodwin, 542 A.2d 367, 368 (Me.1988); quoting Bowie v. Landry, 150 Me. 239, 108 A.2d 314, 315 (1954). [¶ 10] Contrary to Castine’s position, violation of a safety statute or regulation is merely evidence of negligence, not negligence per se. Town of Stonington v. Galilean Gospel Temple, 1999 ME 2, ¶ 10, 722 A.2d 1269, 1272; French v. Willman, 599 A.2d 1151, 1152 (Me.1991). Though this case involves a federal law, state law governs most issues related to the admissibility and effect of evidence. See M.R. Evid. 101 (“These rules govern proceedings in the courts of this state.”); see also Elliott v. S.D. Warren Co., 134 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). [¶ 11] Moreover, even if federal case law
holding that in order for a defendant to remove a case to federal court based upon diversity jurisdiction there must be complete diversity of citizenship both at the time that the case is commenced and at the time that the notice of removal is filed holding in the context of a diversity case that the evidentiary effect accorded the violation of a safety rule is a matter of state law holding that in a diversity action a federal court must apply the law of the forum state holding in the conflict of laws context that district courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction must apply the substantive law of the forum state holding that state law provides the standard of review for a denial of a rule 50 motion in a diversity case