Opinion ID: 508757
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Misleading Jury Instruction

Text: 20 D & Z's final claim is that the district court erred by giving misleading instructions to the jury. It argues that the definition of negligence contained in the court's charge confused the jury by stating that D & Z could be negligent in placing a defective grenade in the stream of commerce. D & Z claims that the phrase stream of commerce evokes a strict liability standard. 21 The test for whether a jury instruction was improper is not whether the charge was faultless, but whether the jury was misled and unable to understand the issues. Borel v. Fibreboard, 493 F.2d 1076 (5th Cir.1973). We consider the charge as a whole. Id. at 1100. If the charge in general correctly instructs, then even though a portion is technically imperfect, no harmful error is committed. Troutman v. Southern Railway Co., 441 F.2d 586 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 871, 92 S.Ct. 81, 30 L.Ed.2d 115 (1971). Following these guidelines we find no reversible error in the instruction. 22 Although stream of commerce is often used in strict liability cases, it clearly does not have such a specific meaning that inclusion of the term in the charge leads a jury to believe strict liability controls. The district court's instructions to the jury explained negligence, plaintiff's burden of proof, the duty of care required, proximate cause, and res ipsa loquitur. The district court also described the McGonigals' contentions, as follows: 23 In this case, the plaintiff claims--the plaintiffs claim that the defendant was negligent and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the damages sustained by the plaintiffs. Specifically, plaintiffs claim that defendant Day & Zimmermann was negligent in failing to properly x-ray the critically defective M213 fuse in question, in failing to detect the critically defective M213 fuse that was received from Gearhart, and failing to provide enough time for the x-ray readers to inspect x-rays of fuse assembled, and in assembling a critically defective fuse into the hand grenade in question.... Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care. 24 We find that inclusion of the phrase stream of commerce in the charge was not misleading. Stream of commerce, in and of itself, does not implicate strict liability as opposed to negligence. It merely refers to a manufacturer moving goods through commerce to the consumer. 25 A related claim brought by D & Z is that the McGonigals' case was tried implicitly on the theory of strict liability, instead of on negligence as this Court ordered in McGonigal I. There is a considerable similarity between the theories of negligent assembly of an explosive relying upon res ipsa loquitur and strict liability for a defective explosive. The reason for this is well and properly explained by the district judge's charge to the jury, which stated: Negligence in the production of a high explosive grenade here in question means failure to use a high degree of care. It is not at all surprising that the trial of a case involving a high degree of care resembles that of a strict product liability case. But the McGonigals' trial is not flawed, because the judge made clear that negligence had to be found by the jury for D & Z to be held liable.