Opinion ID: 2625884
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jury instructions on adequate warning

Text: Appellants submitted a proposed jury instruction regarding legal requirements for an adequate warning based on Pavlides v. Galveston Yacht Basin, Inc., [3] a Fifth Circuit case applying a three-factor test under Texas law [4] for determining whether a product warning was adequate. The proposed instruction read as follows: A warning must (1) be designed so it can reasonably be expected to catch the attention of the consumer; (2) be comprehensible and give a fair indication of the specific risks involved with the product; and (3) be of an intensity justified by the magnitude of the risk. The district court rejected this proposed instruction and instead gave the following two instructions: First: Although you are to consider only the evidence in the case in reaching a verdict, you must bring to the consideration of the evidence your everyday common sense and judgment as reasonable men and women. Thus, you are not limited solely to what you see and hear as the witnesses testify. You may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence which you feel are justified in the light of common experience, keeping in mind that such inferences should not be based on speculation or guess. Second: The question of whether or not a given warning is legally sufficient depends upon the language used and the impression that such language is calculated to make upon the mind of the average user of the product. The first instruction is a stock instruction that the jury should simply use its common sense in evaluating and drawing inferences from the evidence introduced at trial. The second instruction is generally worded, containing partial excerpts from Pavlides. [5] During deliberations, the jury sent a note to the trial judge, requesting a definition of an adequate warning. Appellants proposed an instruction taken from a products liability treatise to the district court. [6] The district court rejected this instruction, as well as again rejecting appellants' proposed Pavlides instruction. Consequently, the district court simply reread the two instructions it had previously given on the issue to the jury. After the trial judge reread the instructions, the jury foreman informed the judge that the reading did not assist the jury in its deliberations. The district court again sought a definition of adequate warning from the parties. Appellants reoffered the treatise definition, arguing that it was essentially consistent with Nevada case authority. [7] The district court again rejected the treatise definition, and refused to instruct the jury further, despite the confusion. Soon after the rereading of the jury instructions, one juror was replaced during deliberations for unspecified reasons. Shortly thereafter, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Sea Ray. This appeal followed.