Opinion ID: 172420
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Instruction on Inadequate Directions

Text: Finally, Mr. Martinez asserts that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury regarding Caterpillar's directions for use of its motor grader. He contends that the jury should have been permitted to find that Caterpillar's inadequate directions for use caused his injuries. The court did give four instructions regarding the adequacy of Caterpillar's warnings. The first of these, Instruction No. 22, read: The supplier must use ordinary care to warn of a risk of injury. However, there is no duty to warn of a risk unknown to the supplier, unless, by the use of ordinary care, the supplier should have known of the risk. Under plaintiff's claim of products liability, a product presents an unreasonable risk of injury if put on the market without warning of a risk which could be avoided by the giving of an adequate warning. The supplier has no duty to warn of risks which it can reasonably expect to be obvious or known to foreseeable users of the product. The next three instructions explained what constituted adequate warnings, and stated that if an adequate warning would have been noticed and acted upon to guard against the danger, a failure to give an adequate warning is a cause of injury. When a party requests that the court give a particular instruction, [i]t is not error to refuse to give a requested instruction if the same subject matter is adequately covered in the general instructions. FDIC v. Schuchmann, 235 F.3d 1217, 1222 (10th Cir.2000) (quotations omitted). For instance, in Schuchmann, the district court did not err by refusing to give an instruction on conflict of interest, when the court gave a fiduciary duty instruction that covered similar issues. Id. at 1223. See also Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. Wood, 438 F.3d 1008, 1019 (10th Cir. 2006) (instruction on fraud under Louisiana law was adequate to cover fraud claim under Oklahoma law). In this case, the instruction on Caterpillar's alleged failure to warn covered similar ground as an instruction on directions for use would have covered. This similarity is evident in New Mexico Civil Uniform Jury Instruction 13-1417, titled Warning or Directions; Means of Communication. The instruction reads, To satisfy the duty [to warn] [to give directions for use], [a warning] [directions for use] must be communicated by a means which can reasonably be expected to reach [persons using the product].... N.M. Civ. UJI 13-1417. This instruction, by using the terms interchangeably, demonstrates that warnings or instructions would be communicated to the user in a similar manner. Thus, the jury likely would use the same analysis in assessing either claim. The jury would look at the information Caterpillar provided to users of the motor grader, and the manner in which it provided that information. Then it would determine whether those materials were adequate to inform users of the dangers associated with inflating a flat tire. Because the warning instructions covered this issue, the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to instruct the jury on directions for use.