Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03263/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03263-0/pdf.json

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

---

PUBLISH 

AUG 10 1992 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL~BERT L. HOEC:KEr.. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JAMES T. CLARK, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

R.E.L. PRODUCTS, INC., 

a corporation, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Clerk 

No. 91-3263 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

(D.C. No. 90-CV-4121) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Paul D. Post, Topeka, Kansas, for Plaintiff-Appellant. 

David R. Buchanan, Brown & James, P.C., Kansas City, Missouri, for 

Defendant-Appellee. 

Before LOGAN, EBEL, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

KELLY, Circuit Judge. 

In this diversity products liability action, Plaintiff 

appeals from a judgment granting Defendant's motion for a directed 

verdict at the close of all evidence in the jury trial. Plaintiff 

Appellate Case: 91-3263 Document: 010110276707 Date Filed: 08/10/1992 Page: 1
sought damages for personal injuries he claimed to have sustained 

as a result of a fall from a defective ladder manufactured and 

sold by Defendant. Clark v. R.E.L. Prods., Inc., 772 F. Supp. 

1181 (D. Kan. 1991). The district court found that the evidence 

failed to support submission of the case to the jury. We 

d . 1 isagree. 

In our review of a directed verdict, we apply the same 

standard applied by the district court: whether the evidence, 

viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, 

presents a disagreement sufficient to mandate submission to a jury 

or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a 

matter of law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 

251-52 (1986): Mason v. Texaco, Inc., 948 F.2d 1546, 1554 (10th 

Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1941 (1992). 

The record reflects that Plaintiff introduced evidence that 

(1) the ladder's side rails did not meet American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) standards, (2) decay was present at or 

near the location of the break when Plaintiff first received the 

ladder and removed it from the box, and (3) the ladder was 

manufactured and sold by Defendant in 1988, and Plaintiff received 

it in February or March of 1988. Defendant's expert wood 

technologist found evidence of decay at or near the place where 

1 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. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-3263 Document: 010110276707 Date Filed: 08/10/1992 Page: 2
the ladder broke. Defendant's experts testified the ladder side 

rails did meet ANSI standards. 

Plaintiff testified that he fell from the ladder when a rung 

he stood on broke, leaving the ladder leaning against the wall at 

an angle. Defendant's experts disputed Plaintiff's version of the 

accident. "[A]lthough plaintiff was the only person present at 

the scene of the accident, it was impermissible for purposes of a 

directed verdict motion to disregard his testimony as to how the 

accident occurred." See Martin v. Unit Rig & Equip. Co., 715 F.2d 

1434, 1440 (10th Cir. 1983). Moreover, from the evidence that 

Plaintiff saw spots on the ladder, later identified as decay, when 

he first opened the box in which he received the ladder just a few 

months after the ladder left Defendant's possession or control, 

the jury reasonably could infer that the ladder was decayed when 

it left Defendant's possession or control. See, e.g., City of 

Bainbridge v. Cox, 64 S.E.2d 192, 195 (Ga. Ct. App. 195l)("It is a 

matter of common knowledge that the processes of decay in woods do 

not operate so rapidly that the decayed condition of the tree 

could have been materially altered by the processes of decay in a 

space of six or eight days."). We express no opinion on when or 

how the decay occurred or whether decay contributed to the 

accident; that is for the trier of fact to decide. Similarly, the 

ladder dimensions and how the accident occurred are also questions 

of fact to be decided by the trier of fact. 

Because we remand for a new trial, we need not address the 

district court's exclusion of Plaintiff's rebuttal expert witness 

testimony. 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-3263 Document: 010110276707 Date Filed: 08/10/1992 Page: 3
The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas is VACATED, and the action is REMANDED for a 

new trial. 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-3263 Document: 010110276707 Date Filed: 08/10/1992 Page: 4