Charlene Janson v. Reithoffer Shows, Inc. ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2374 Doc: 30 Filed: 06/01/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-2374
CHARLENE JANSON,
Plaintiff − Appellee,
v.
REITHOFFER SHOWS, INC.,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (1:19−cv−00079−DLB)
Submitted: October 5, 2022 Decided: June 1, 2023
Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: David A. Skomba, Miranda D. Russell, FRANKLIN & PROKOPIK, P.C.,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Michael J. Winkelman, MCCARTHY,
WINKELMAN, MESTER, OFFUTT, LLP, Lanham, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2374 Doc: 30 Filed: 06/01/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Reithoffer Shows, Inc. appeals the district court’s denial of its Rule 50 motions for
judgment as a matter of law. The jury found that Reithoffer’s negligence proximately
caused Charlene Janson’s injury. And although the jury also found Janson was
contributorily negligent, it awarded her damages, finding that Reithoffer had the last clear
chance to avoid her injury but failed to do so. Before the case was submitted to the jury,
Reithoffer argued that there was insufficient evidence to submit the questions whether
Reithoffer’s negligence proximately caused Janson’s injury and whether Reithoffer had the
last clear chance to avoid the injury. After the district court entered judgment, Reithoffer
renewed its motion on last-clear-chance grounds. The district court denied those motions.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, for the
reasons identified in the district court’s decision, see Janson v. Reithoffer Shows, Inc., No.
DLB-19-79, 2021 WL 5280894 (D. Md. Nov. 12, 2021), we affirm. And we dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2