opinion: SENTILLES v. INTER-CARIBBEAN SHIPPING CORP.
  No. 6.
  Argued October 19, 1959.
  Decided November 23, 1959.
  Milton Kelner argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was John K. Lewis.
  Robert J: Beckham argued the cause for respondent. On the brief was George F. Gilleland.
  Mr. Justice Brennan
  delivered the opinion of the ■ Court.
  The petitioner brought this suit against the respondent to recover damages sustained by him allegedly as a consequence of a shipboard accident while serving as a crew-member on the respondent’s vessel in the Caribbean. As the vessel encountered a heavy sea, petitioner was pitched into the air and fell back to the deck, where, upon landing, a wave washed him a considerable distance. Shortly after the accident, the petitioner became quite ill and was hospitalized and treated for a serious case of tuberculosis. The respondent’s liability for the accident was predicated on fault under the Jones Act, 41 Stat. 1007, 46 U. S. C. § 688, and alternatively on breach of the maritime duty .to furnish a seaworthy vessel. The petitioner’s theory was that the accident activated or aggravated a previously latent tubercular condition. The case was submitted to a jury in the District Court, where a verdict was returned for the petitioner, and judgment entered thereon. In the Court of Appeals, the respondent did not argue that the jury could not have with reason found it liable for the accident, but contended solely that the evidence did not justify the jury’s conclusion that the- accident caused the serious illness that followed it. The Court of Appeals-agreed with the respondent’s contention and reversed, 256 F. 2d 156. We granted certiorari on a petition in which it was asserted that the Cou,rt of Appeals had applied. an improper standard in reviewing the medical evidence and in examining the judgment rendered on the jury’s verdict. 359 U. S. 923.
  There was evidence that petitioner (whose medical history was an active one) had been examined several times by his regular physician in the year preceding the accident, as recently as two months before it, with no appearance of tuberculosis being then noted. During the petitioner’s acute tuberculosis subsequent to the accident, a specialist re-examined X-ray pictures taken in the years preceding the accident, and concluded that they- did in fact reveal a pulmonary lesion, at first involving a “small scarred inactive area.” “In retrospect,” the specialist felt that the lesion had been tubercular. In response to a hypothetical question as to the effect of an accident like pétitioner’s on the aggravation or activation of a pre-existing, dormant tubercular condition, the specialist gave an opinion that “acute dissemination of the tuberculosis” might be a consequence of the accident. Another specialist, who had treated petitioner during his hospitalization after the accident, posited the trauma and petitioner’s pre-existing diabetic condition as the most likely causes of the aggravation of the tuberculosis, though he was not able to state “which of the two it is more likely was responsible in this instance.” Another medical expert, who had' not personally examined petitioner, when questioned hypothetically, was of opinion that the accident “probably aggravated his condition,” though he would not say definitely: “We don’t éver select one item and say that is the cause of any particular aggravation.”
  The jury’s power to draw the inference that the aggravation of petitioner’s tubercular, condition, evident so shortly after the' accident, was in fact caused by that accident, was not impaired by the failure of any medical witness to testify that it was in fact the cause. Neither can it be impaired by the lack, of medical unanimity as-to the respective likelihood of the potential causes of the aggravation, or by the fact that other potential causes of the aggravation existed and were not conclusively negated by the proofs. The matter does riot turn on the use of a particular form of words by the physicians in giving their testimony. The members of the jury, not the medical witnesses, were sworn to maké a legal determination of the question of causation. They were entitled to take all the circumstances, including the medical testimony, into consideration. See Sullivan v. Boston Elevated R. Co., 185 Mass. 602, 71 N. E. 90; Miami Coal Co. v. Luce, 76 Ind. App. 245, 131 N. E. 824. Though this case involves a medical issue, it is no exception to the admonition that, “It is not the function of a court to search the record for conflicting circumstantial evidence in order to take the case away from the jury on a theory that the proof gives equal support to inconsistent and uncertain inferences. The focal point of judicial review is the reasonableness of the particular inference or conclusion drawn by the jury. .... The Very essence of its function is to select from among conflicting inferences and conclusions that which it considers most reasonable. . . . Courts are not free to reweigh the evidence and set aside the jury verdict merely because the jury could have drawn different inferences or conclusions or because judges feel that other results are more reasonable.” Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union R. Co., 321 U. S. 29, 35. The proofs here justified with reason the conclusion of the jury that the accident caused the petitioner’s serious subsequent illness. See Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500.
  Reversed.
  Mr. Justice Whittaker, finding in the record direct medical testimony expressing the opinion that petitioner’s 'latent tubercular condition actually was activated by the , trauma complained of, concürs.
  Maintenance and cure in respect of the illness were also claimed ; this was viewed as. presenting a causation problem similar to that posed by the claim for indemnity damages.
  For a discussion of the reluctance of medical opinion to assign traupia as the cause of disease, and of the varying medical and legal . concepts of causation, see Small, Gaffing at a Thing Called Cause: Médica-Legal Conflicts in the Concept of-Causation, 31 Tex. L. Rev. 630: • •\ ■ ■
  The medical testimony in the case last cited, moved the court to say: “Indeed, if jt-were not for the’ saving ;grace'of what we call common sense, justice would be defeated iri almost, every cáse, where opinion evidence is admitted.” Id., at 249, 131 N. E., at 826.
choices: antitrust (except in the context of mergers and union antitrust) mergers bankruptcy (except in the context of priority of federal fiscal claims) sufficiency of evidence: typically in the context of a jury's determination of compensation for injury or death election of remedies: legal remedies available to injured persons or things liability, governmental: tort or contract actions by or against government or governmental officials other than defense of criminal actions brought under a civil rights action. liability, other than as in sufficiency of evidence, election of remedies, punitive damages liability, punitive damages Employee Retirement Income Security Act (cf. union trust funds) state or local government tax state and territorial land claims state or local government regulation, especially of business (cf. federal pre-emption of state court jurisdiction, federal pre-emption of state legislation or regulation) federal or state regulation of securities natural resources - environmental protection (cf. national supremacy: natural resources, national supremacy: pollution) corruption, governmental or governmental regulation of other than as in campaign spending zoning: constitutionality of such ordinances, or restrictions on owners' or lessors' use of real property arbitration (other than as pertains to labor-management or employer-employee relations (cf. union arbitration) federal or state consumer protection: typically under the Truth in Lending; Food, Drug and Cosmetic; and Consumer Protection Credit Acts patents and copyrights: patent patents and copyrights: copyright patents and copyrights: trademark patents and copyrights: patentability of computer processes federal or state regulation of transportation regulation: railroad federal and some few state regulations of transportation regulation: boat federal and some few state regulation of transportation regulation:truck, or motor carrier federal and some few state regulation of transportation regulation: pipeline (cf. federal public utilities regulation: gas pipeline) federal and some few state regulation of transportation regulation: airline federal and some few state regulation of public utilities regulation: electric power federal and some few state regulation of public utilities regulation: nuclear power federal and some few state regulation of public utilities regulation: oil producer federal and some few state regulation of public utilities regulation: gas producer federal and some few state regulation of public utilities regulation: gas pipeline (cf. federal transportation regulation: pipeline) federal and some few state regulation of public utilities regulation: radio and television (cf. cable television) federal and some few state regulation of public utilities regulation: cable television (cf. radio and television) federal and some few state regulations of public utilities regulation: telephone or telegraph company miscellaneous economic regulation