Opinion ID: 2782923
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: ADTPA Jury Instruction

Text: Licensees argue that the district court erred in instructing the jury that “[p]laintiffs may not recover [under the ADTPA] if the only injury they suffered is -8- the diminution in value of the product.” We review a district court’s jury instructions for abuse of discretion. Brown v. Sandals Resorts Int’l, 284 F.3d 949, 953 (8th Cir. 2002). “Our review is limited to whether the jury instructions, taken as a whole, ‘fairly and adequately represent the evidence and applicable law in light of the issues presented to the jury in a particular case.’” Id. (quoting Ford v. GACS, Inc., 265 F.3d 670, 679 (8th Cir. 2001)). “The jury should receive instructions on issues supported by competent evidence in the record.” Id. Under Arkansas law, a plaintiff bringing a private cause of action under the ADTPA must prove both a violation of the ADTPA and actual damage or injury. Skalla v. Canepari, 430 S.W.3d 72, 82 (Ark. 2013). Actual damage or injury is not satisfied by mere diminution in value of a product. Wallis v. Ford Motor Co., 208 S.W.3d 153, 161 (Ark. 2005) (“Where the only alleged injury is the diminution in value of the product, a private cause of action is not cognizable under the ADTPA.”). Wallis involved a plaintiff who claimed that the manufacturer of his car had concealed design problems that could cause the car to roll over. Id. at 154. The sole injury the plaintiff claimed was that the design defect “substantially diminished” the value of his car; he did not allege that he had been physically injured, that he had sustained property damage, or that his car had malfunctioned in any way. Id. at 15455. The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that the plaintiff had not suffered “actual damage or injury” as required to bring a private cause of action under the ADTPA. Id. at 161-62; see also Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-113(f). Licensees argue that because they provided sufficient evidence that they had received a product that was completely different from the product for which they had bargained, the district court should not have given the diminution instruction. We disagree. The jury could have reasonably found that Licensees’ injuries amounted to no more than a diminution in value of the Safeblood Tech products they contracted to market. Licensees could have proceeded with plans to market the Safeblood Tech products in the Middle East, albeit without patent protection. And although the -9- products would have been more valuable with patent protection, the jury could have found that the products still had value even without patent protection and that Licensees thus suffered only a diminution in value of the products. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it gave the jury the diminution instruction.3