Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03454/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03454-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Labor Ready
Appellee
Kelly Norberg
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3454

___________

Kelly Norberg, individually and as a *

natural mother and guardian of Alec *

Norberg, a minor, and an employee of *

Labor Ready, *

* Appeal from the United States

Plaintiff - Appellant, * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

v. *

*

Labor Ready, Inc., a Washington * [UNPUBLISHED] 

corporation *

* 

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 20, 2006

Filed: April 25, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM. 

Kelly Norberg filed this personal injury action on behalf of herself and her son

Alec, who as a three year old suffered permanent injuries to his hand from a paper

shredder at her workplace, a branch office of Labor Ready, Inc. The jury found in

Appellate Case: 05-3454 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/25/2006 Entry ID: 2036808
1

The Honorable Ross A. Walters, Chief United States Magistrate Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa, presiding. 

-2-

favor of Labor Ready, and Norberg appeals. She contends that the district court1

 erred

by denying her motions for directed verdict and for judgment as a matter of law or for

a new trial and by allowing use of an exemplar paper shredder at trial. She also

asserts that there was no evidence that she was negligent and that any possible

negligence on her part should not have been imputed to Alec. 

Norberg's husband Randy took three of their young children to her office on the

evening of November 1, 2000. While they were there, Randy left the children in a

back area of the office in order to speak with Norberg. The couple heard a scream and

then discovered that Alec's fingers had been caught in a paper shredder. The accident

resulted in permanent injury to three of his fingers. At trial Norberg testified that the

shredder made noise only when it was in use. The district court permitted Labor

Ready to use an exemplar shredder to impeach her testimony by demonstrating the

amount of noise which emanated from it when not turned off. There was also

testimony about an office policy which excluded children from the employee area

with very limited exceptions. When all of the evidence had been presented, Norberg

moved for directed verdict on Alec's behalf; the motion was denied. After the verdict

was returned in favor of Labor Ready, Norberg filed a motion for judgment as a

matter of law or a new trial, which was denied. 

Norberg asserts that the magistrate judge erred by denying her motion for

directed verdict because she had offered proof that the office was unsafe under both

attractive nuisance and res ipsa loquitur theories and also erred by denying her post

trial motion. She contends that Alec was legally incapable of being found

contributorily negligent at his age, that there was no proof that she negligently

supervised him, and that any negligence of hers could not be imputed to Alec.

Appellate Case: 05-3454 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/25/2006 Entry ID: 2036808
-3-

Norberg also challenges the use of the exemplar shredder as unduly prejudicial,

alleging that it should have been disclosed prior to trial and that it was not used for

impeachment but rather as the centerpiece of the defense. 

We review denials of motions for directed verdict and judgment as a matter of

law de novo, viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the respondent or the

verdict. See Simpson v. Merchants & Planters Bank, 441 F.3d 572, 577 (8th Cir.

2006); Hanig v. Lee, 415 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2005). Such a motion may only be

granted if there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find

for a party on a material issue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1). We review the denial

of a motion for new trial for abuse of discretion. Lopez v. Mendez, 432 F.3d 829, 833

(8th Cir. 2005). 

After studying the record, we conclude that Norberg has not shown that she is

entitled to prevail on appeal. There was evidence to support the trial judge's ruling

that res ipsa loquitur did not apply because the machine was not under Labor Ready's

exclusive control when the accident occurred. There was also evidence that the box

of toys alleged to have attracted Alec was in a different cubicle than the shredder, and

there was testimony about the office policy against allowing children at work. Since

there was sufficient evidence to uphold the jury verdict, the court did not err by

denying the motions for directed verdict and judgment as a matter of law. Finally,

there was no abuse of its discretion in allowing use of the shredder at trial for

impeachment purposes, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3), and also no abuse in denying the

motion for a new trial. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

___________________

Appellate Case: 05-3454 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/25/2006 Entry ID: 2036808