Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02989/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02989-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ford Motor Company
Appellee
TRW
Appellee
Cheri Thomas
Appellant
Joe Thomas
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable John F. Forster, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2989

___________

Joe Thomas; Cheri Thomas, *

*

Appellants, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Arkansas.

*

Ford Motor Company; TRW, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: September 7, 2005

Filed: October 6, 2005

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joe and Cheri Thomas (Thomases) appeal the district court’s1

 adverse entry of

judgment following a trial in their diversity products-liability action. The only issue

on appeal is whether the district court properly submitted to the jury the issue of

contributory negligence on the part of a nonparty, the City of Mayflower, Arkansas

(Mayflower). 

Appellate Case: 04-2989 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/06/2005 Entry ID: 1960157
-2-

Before trial the Thomases stipulated that the issue of Mayflower’s fault would

be submitted to the jury so the jury could compare Mayflower’s fault to any fault for

which the jury held defendants responsible. During trial the Thomases raised

concerns with the legality of the stipulation agreement, but they ultimately agreed to

submit the issue of Mayflower’s fault to the jury and agreed to the related special

interrogatory, and they thus have waived appellate review. See Starks v. Rent-ACenter, 58 F.3d 358, 361-62 (8th Cir. 1995) (it is fundamental that where party

invited error, there can be no reversible error); cf. Porterco, Inc. v. Igloo Prods. Corp.,

955 F.2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1992) (where no specific objections are made to district

court’s decision to submit issue to jury, party waives appellate review of ruling). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2989 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/06/2005 Entry ID: 1960157