Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00109/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00109-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT KURT SCHERER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., 

KRAUSE, INC., AND DOES 1-100, 

 Defendants. /

No. Civ. S-04-0109 DFL GGH 

Memorandum of Opinion

and Order

Plaintiff Kurt Scherer moves for a new trial. Under Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 59(a), the court may grant a new trial “for any of 

the reasons for which new trials have heretofore been granted in 

actions at law in the courts of the United States.” “If, having 

given full respect to the jury’s findings, the judge on the 

entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction 

that a mistake has been committed, it is to be expected that he 

will grant a new trial.” Landes Const. Co., Inc. v. Royal Bank 

of Canada, 833 F.2d 1365, 1371-72 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Case 2:04-cv-00109-DFL-GGH Document 348 Filed 04/10/07 Page 1 of 4
2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff’s rambling sixteen-page motion, which contains 

not a single citation to authority, is largely devoted to 

complaining about the court’s prior evidentiary and procedural 

rulings, but it provides no reasoned basis for reconsidering 

those rulings.1 Despite being given multiple opportunities to 

make an adequate proffer, plaintiff failed to make a coherent 

proffer let alone carry his burden of demonstrating that any 

other ladder collapse case was substantially similar, and thus 

relevant, to this one. 

Notably absent from plaintiff’s motion is any argument 

that, based on the evidence presented at trial, the jury should 

have reached a different verdict. Far from being against the 

clear weight of the evidence, the jury’s verdict in this case 

was reasonable and sound. Plaintiff failed to prove that the 

 

1 Plaintiff also makes the novel suggestion that the jury 

committed misconduct by considering alternative explanations for 

Mr. Scherer’s accident. Scherer submits a declaration from 

juror Steven C. Ziegler stating, among other things, that 

“[d]uring our deliberations we considered something else caused 

the accident, such as Mr. Scherer having accessed the roof and 

missed a step when descending.” Decl. of Steven C. Ziegler ¶ 5. 

Scherer implies that it was improper for the jury to have 

considered possible accident scenarios other than hinge collapse 

and slide out. 

Plaintiff apparently fails to grasp that he bore the burden 

of proof at trial. Defendants did not have the burden of 

proving that the ladder slid out; rather, plaintiff had the 

burden of proving that it collapsed. It was entirely 

appropriate for the jury to consider whether there might be 

other possible explanations for the accident in the process of 

Case 2:04-cv-00109-DFL-GGH Document 348 Filed 04/10/07 Page 2 of 4
3 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ladder collapsed. In fact, evidence presented by plaintiff 

himself seriously undermined the collapse theory. One factual 

issue in the case was the disagreement among the experts as to 

whether a multimatic ladder could collapse under load – that is, 

with the weight of a person pressing on the hinges. Plaintiff 

took the risk of attempting a live demonstration of ladder 

collapse. Defendants objected to the demonstration on the 

ground that it was tantamount to a further experiment that 

should have been undertaken during the discovery process. 

Plaintiff strenuously argued that his case would be severely 

injured unless he could show the jury that a multimatic ladder 

could collapse under loaded conditions. Plaintiff was all too 

correct. The court permitted the demonstration. But though his 

engineering expert bounced up and down on the ladder while the 

attorney pulled on the release lever with all of her might and 

main, trying to make a loaded ladder collapse for the jury, the 

hinges doggedly held. Many trials have a single dramatic moment 

on which an entire case may crumble and fall. This was just 

such a moment. 

Based on the evidence, judgment for defendants was a 

reasonable verdict – perhaps the only reasonable verdict – for 

 

deciding whether plaintiff’s explanation was supported by a 

preponderance of the evidence.

Case 2:04-cv-00109-DFL-GGH Document 348 Filed 04/10/07 Page 3 of 4
4 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the jury to reach. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 9, 2007 

 /s/ David F. Levi___________

 DAVID F. LEVI 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-00109-DFL-GGH Document 348 Filed 04/10/07 Page 4 of 4