Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05073/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05073-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 

---

I 

,, 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

TAMARA MICHELLE FIELDS, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

( NEE I YOACHUM) , 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

Uruted Stares Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

NOV 9 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) Ho. 89-5073 

J.C. PITTMAN COMPANY, INC., doing 

business as PITCO FRIALATOR, INC., a 

Hew Hampshire corporation; PITCO 

FRIALATOR, INC., a Hew Hampshire corporation, a division of the 

BUSSMANN Food Service Company, a 

Delaware corporation, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

) (D.C. Ho·. 86-C-939-E) 

) (H.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before MCKAY; MCWILLIAMS, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 

The case is therefore ordered 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-5073 Document: 010110047881 Date Filed: 11/09/1990 Page: 1 
, 

Defendants appeal from an adverse judgment entered by the 

district court on a $175,000 jury verdict for plaintiff in this 

diversity tort action. Plaintiff sued 

(products) liability for burn injuries 

defendants in strict 

suffered when hot oil 

spilled out of a frialator, 

result of a failure of 

appliance. 

manufactured by defendants, as a 

one of the casters supporting the 

Defendants object to the district court's denial of their 

motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the 

verdict (JNOV), which challenged the sufficiency of plaintiff's 

evidence at succeeding stages of the proceedings. These kindred 

rulings, see Zimmerman v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 848 F.2d 

1047, 1051 (10th Cir. 1988), claim our de novo review under the 

same standard applied by the district court, Guilfoyle ex rel. 

Wild v. Missouri. Kansas & Texas Railroad Co., 812 F.2d 1290, 1292 

(10th Cir. 1987). That is, "[w]e will reverse the trial court's 

denial of a motion for a directed verdict [or JNOV] only if, 

viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the 

evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom point 

but one way, in favor of the moving party." Mitchell v. Mobil Oil 

Corp., 896 F.2d 463, 467 (10th Cir. 1990). 

We concur in the district court's ruling that plaintiff 

presented sufficient circumstantial evidence regarding a 

manufacturing defect to raise a triable question of fact for the 

jury. See generally, Kirkland v. General Motors Corp., 521 P.2d 

1353, 1363-64 (Okla. 1974); Barber v. General Elec. Co., 648 F.2d 

1272, 1277-78 (10th Cir. 1981). In light of the lay testimony 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-5073 Document: 010110047881 Date Filed: 11/09/1990 Page: 2 
' 

adduced by plaintiff, the exceptional rule of Hurd v. American 

Hoist & Derrick Co., 734 F.2d 495, 500-01 (10th Cir. 1984), is 

inapplicable here. Therefore, we agree with the district court 

that the jury was free to accept or reject the opinions expressed 

by defendants' expert in accordance with settled principles 

governing the use and effect of such testimony. See Dixon v. 

Outboard Marine Corp., 481 P.2d 151, 155 (Okla. 1970); ~, ~, 

Boxberqer v. Martin, 552 P.2d 370, 375 (Okla. 1976). 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-5073 Document: 010110047881 Date Filed: 11/09/1990 Page: 3