Case ID: f-appx_158/html/0746-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joe THOMAS; Cheri Thomas, Appellants, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY; TRW, Inc., Appellees.
    No. 04-2989.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 7, 2005.
    Decided: Oct. 6, 2005.
    Cathleen V. Compton, Little Rock, AR, for Appellants.
    Edwin Lee Lowther, Jr., Wright & Lindsey, G. Spence Fricke, Barber & McCaskill, Little Rock, AR, David B. Weinstein, R. Glen Rigby, Pillsbury & Winthrop, LLP, Houston, TX, for Appellees.
    Before BYE, MCMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Joe and Cheri Thomas (Thomases) appeal the district court’s adverse entry of judgment following a trial in their diversity products-liability action. The only issue on appeal is whether the district court properly submitted to the jury the issue of contributory negligence on the part of a nonparty, the City of Mayflower, Arkansas (Mayflower).

Before trial the Thomases stipulated that the issue of Mayflower’s fault would be submitted to the jury so the jury could compare Mayflower’s fault to any fault for which the jury held defendants responsible. During trial the Thomases raised concerns with the legality of the stipulation agreement, but they ultimately agreed to submit the issue of Mayflower’s fault to the jury and agreed to the related special interrogatory, and they thus have waived appellate review. See Starks v. Rent-A-Center, 58 F.3d 358, 361-62 (8th Cir.1995) (it is fundamental that where party invited error, there can be no reversible error); cf. Porterco, Inc. v. Igloo Prods. Corp., 955 F.2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir.1992) (where no specific objections are made to district court’s decision to submit issue to jury, party waives appellate review of ruling).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable John F. Forster, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).