Opinion ID: 556454
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Strict Products Liability Theories

Text: 17 Appellants assert that the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury on each of the Hortons' theories of recovery and in failing to submit an interrogatory on each theory. The Hortons asked the district court, prior to the jury charge, to submit instructions on the unreasonably dangerous per se theory, the design theory, and the failure to warn theory. Thus, the district court was given timely notice of each of the desired instructions. Further, the desired instruction on each theory was substantially correct as the Hortons quoted verbatim the language of Halphen. 18 The remaining question in determining if the Hortons were entitled to each desired instruction focuses on whether there was evidence presented on each of the three theories. To answer this question, this Court reviewed the entire record. First, the record fails to show that the Hortons presented any evidence on the unreasonably dangerous per se theory. As a result, the Hortons were not entitled to an instruction on the unreasonably dangerous per se theory. 19 Second, as for the design theory, the Hortons presented substantial evidence on such theory. Indeed, Klein concedes that the Hortons advanced the design theory. Accordingly, the Hortons were entitled to an instruction on the design theory. 20 Finally, there was evidence admitted which tended to support the failure to warn theory. The Hortons submitted evidence at trial that Klein had published a catalog in which it warned of the possibility of accidental disengagement. This catalog was probative of Klein's knowledge of an inherent danger in the snap lock. While the catalog was given to distributors, it did not ordinarily reach the hands of the user of the snap lock. Moreover, Donald Horton testified that he was not aware of the risk of accidental disengagement. From this, the jury could have inferred that the risk was not obvious to the average user. In sum, the Hortons were entitled to jury instructions on the design theory and the failure to warn theory. 21 We must next evaluate the adequacy of the instructions given. After reviewing the initial and supplemental instructions, this Court is convinced that the instructions, as a whole, adequately informed the jury of the law on the failure to warn theory. The instructions concerning the design theory, on the other hand, were wholly inadequate. Critically, no mention was made of any of the three reasons a product may be unreasonably dangerous because of design, as enunciated in Halphen. Furthermore, the instructions failed to distinguish between the design theory and the failure to warn theory. In a written memorandum denying Appellants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the district court stated that its instructions were proper since warning was inextricably intertwined with design. Under the law applicable to the instant case, the district court erred. The Louisiana courts have clearly differentiated between the theories of recovery in strict products liability law. See Brown v. Parker-Hannifin Corp., 919 F.2d 308, 311 n. 9 (5th Cir.1990). In Halphen, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that a 22 plaintiff may elect to try his case upon any or all of the theories of recovery. If he decides to pursue more than one, he is entitled to an instruction that evidence which is admissible exclusively under one theory may be considered only for that purpose. 23 484 So.2d at 115. Specifically, the courts have treated the design theory and the failure to warn theory as two independent theories for recovery. See, e.g., Miles v. Olin Corp., 922 F.2d 1221, 1227 (5th Cir.1991); Ingram v. Caterpillar Machinery Corp., 535 So.2d 723, 728-29 (La.1988); Leday v. Aztec Corp., 544 So.2d 1249, 1251-52 (La.App.1989); see also Davis v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 892 F.2d at 383. The instructions here improperly confused the two theories by creating an inference that design and failure to warn were necessarily related and were not two distinct theories. 24 It is difficult to find merit in Klein's argument on appeal that the incorrect jury instructions do not justify a new trial inasmuch as Klein admitted at trial that the theories were independent. Reviewing the jury charge as a whole, this Court is left with the impression that the jury was not properly guided in its deliberations. Our conclusion is buttressed by the jury's conduct during its deliberations, evidencing some confusion. The jury sent several messages to the court requesting a copy of the Louisiana Products Liability Law, and a definition of unreasonably dangerous. Thus, Appellants are entitled to a new trial. 25 After having decided that the jury instructions were inadequate, this Court need not decide whether the special interrogatories submitted were proper.