Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02952/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02952-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cira:iit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JAN 2 6 1 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

RONNIE D. ARNOLD, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

R.G. INDUSTRIES, INC.; ROHM GELLSCHAFT ) 

G.M.B.H., ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellants. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 88-2952 

(D.C. No. 87-711-R) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, 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 

Defendants appeal from a judgment entered by the district 

court on an adverse jury verdict, as well as from the court's 

subsequent denial of their new trial motion, in this 

manufacturer's products liability action. 

* 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 estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-2952 Document: 01019961700 Date Filed: 01/26/1990 Page: 1 
The issues raised by defendants concern the admission of 

certain evidence at trial and the district court's refusal of an 

instruction regarding intervening cause. Upon consideration of 

the parties' arguments, we are convinced that the district court 

did not abuse its discretion with respect to the challenged 

evidentiary rulings, see generally United States v. Alexander, 849 

F.2d 1293, 1301 (10th Cir. 1988); Bannister v. Town of Noble, 812 

F.2d 1265, 1270 (10th Cir. 1987), nor did it err in its 

instruction of the jury, which, considered as a whole, fairly 

presented the law applicable to the issues, see generally Messler 

v. Simmons Gun Specialties, Inc., 687 P.2d 121, 129 (Okla. 1984); 

Fields v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 555 P.2d 48, 57 (Okla. 1976). 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-2952 Document: 01019961700 Date Filed: 01/26/1990 Page: 2