|
8. Murray v. Fairbanks Morse --- 610 F.2d 149 (3d Cir. 1979)
1. Fact
Norwilton Muray, the plaintiff working for Litwin Corporation, was an experienced instrument fitter. On July 21, 1974, while he was installing an electrical control panel with his coworker, the cross-member he was leaning over, gave way and he fell approximately ten feet to the concrete floor, sustaining severe injuries to his spine. He filed an action against Beloit on the grounds of alternative theories of strict liability under Restatement (second) of torts § 402A and common law negligence. Applying the Virgin Islands comparative negligence statute, 5 V.I.C. § 1451(1978) 1 to a strict products liability action, the district court instructed the jury to find whether the defendant was liable, and the plaintiff was negligence to reduce plaintiff’s award by the percentage attributable to his fault. The jury recognized the plaintiff 5% at fault, which amounted to $1,747,000.
2. Issue
① whether it was error for plaintiff's counsel to specifically request the jury to return a verdict, which it apparently honored, for $2,000,000.
② whether the district court erred in not granting a new trial on the ground that the verdict was excessive.
③ whether the court erred in not granting a new trial because the jury fixed Murray's fault at only five percent, even though the jury found that his own negligence was a proximate cause of his injuries.
3. Rule
① Gilmore v. Strescon Industries, Inc., 66 F.R.D. 146, 152 (E.D.Pa.), Aff'd, 521 F.2d 1398 (3d Cir. 1975).
Counsel's failure to object precludes him from seeking a new trial on the grounds of the impropriety of opposing counsel's closing remarks.
② In Edynak v. Atlantic Shipping, Inc.
The question of the excessiveness of a verdict is primarily a matter to be addressed to the sound discretion of the district judge, and we may not disturb his determination unless a "manifest abuse of discretion" be shown.
③ Stueve, supra, 457 F.Supp. at 751
it is just as reasonable to assume the passage of a comparative negligence statute was not designed to preclude a comparison of fault in strict liability actions, . . . and to extrapolate that if the principle is helpful and fair, 'it should be applied by (a) court as a principle of common law.
4. Application
First, Beloit argues that it was improper for trial court to allow Murry’s counsel to plead for a specific sum of damages to the jury and the jury was incited to find $2000,000 verdict not in accordance with the evidence. But the court declined to Beloit’ argument on the grounds that the defendant failed to object to the opposing party’s reference to a specific Ad damnum.
Second, as to Beloit’s contention that the amount awarded to the plaintiff was excessive, Judge young, the trial judge, declined to order a remittitur on the grounds that although the amount was higher than he thought, there was substantial evidence in the record on which it could have based its award.
Third, the claims of both parties that damages were improperly apportioned.
The court found that the plaintiff’s want of ordinary care of duty in his use of the product and unreasonable exposure to a known and appreciable risk of injury should work to diminish damages in proportion to the amount of causative culpable conduct attributable to plaintiff.
5. Conclusion
the judgment of the district court is affirmed, and Murray's cross-appeal denied.
6. Classnote/ Feedback
negligence per se: Negligence per se is a doctrine in US law whereby an act is considered negligent because it violates a statute (or regulation).
In order to prove negligence per se, the plaintiff usually must show that:
1. the defendant violated a common law duty of care or a duty of care under statute,
2. the act caused harm or all harm the statute was designed to prevent, and
3. the plaintiff was the victim suffering harm due to the breach of the duty of care generally and as a member of the statute's protected class.
Duty of care 가 있다, rule을 instruct- 판사가 정함
Rule을 apply하는 것은 배심원- jury
JNOV- judgment not withstanding verdict.
Product liability 중 strict liability는 무엇을 추구하는가?
Negligence- ① duty of care ②breach of duty ③ causation ④ damage
Strict liability- ① 제조자가 그 제품을 만들었는가 ② 소비자가 그 제품을 변형하지 않았다 ③ 제조물에 defect가 있는가 ④ defect가 dangerous가? ⑤ 그 위험이 causation이 있는가?
Lemon law- laws that provide a remedy for purchasers of cars and other consumer goods in order to compensate for products that repeatedly fail to meet standards of quality and performance. Although many types of products can be defective, the term "lemon" is mostly used to describe defective motor vehicles, such as cars, trucks, and motorcycles. Lemon laws originated to protect car buyers since vehicles that constantly have issues create risks and huge headaches.
Design, manufacture, warning 문제인지 잘 구분해서 분석해야함
Strict liability- Defect를 입증
Product liability > strict liability
Manufacturer의 defense: assumption of risk, plaintiff’s misuse
Contributory negligence가 있는 주에서는 plaintiff가 negligence가 있으면 소송을 할 수 없다.
|