How has the Court considered the appellant's claim that the district court erred by refusing to grant him a new trial?

With respect to the appellant's argument that the district court erred by refusing to grant him a new trial, we note the following: (1) no evidence was presented to indicate that the appellee's crew did anything to the lashings prior to docking other than what the stevedore would have done as part of normal cargo operations; (2) the appellant's employer knowingly paired two largely inexperienced casual longshoremen to work as lashers, only one of whom had previously worked with the type of lashing involved; and (3) contrary to normal practice, the appellant's employer did not conduct a pre-work "walk-through" with the appellant or his partner, did not carefully instruct them on what was to be done or how it was to be accomplished, and did not inspect their work areas before releasing the appellant and his partner to begin unlashing the cargo containers. Viewing the above in the light most favorable to the verdict, see Locricchio v. Legal Servs. Corp., 833 F.2d 1352, 1359 (9th Cir.1987), and bearing in mind that "the shipowner may rely on the stevedore to avoid exposing the longshoremen to unreasonable hazards[,]" Scindia, 451 U.S. at 170, it cannot be said that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence or that the district court abused its discretion by denying the new trial motion.

The appellee's request for attorney fees on appeal is denied.