Court Opinion

ID: 2964750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:30:30.231708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:00.806362
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-2258

                                 CHRISTOPHER MOULTON,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,
                                          v.

                                  THE RIVAL COMPANY,
                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________
                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. David M. Cohen, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
                                           _____________________
                                 ____________________

                                        Before
                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                            Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________
                                 ____________________

            Ernest  J. Babcock,  with  whom  Elizabeth A.  Germani, George  D.
            __________________               _____________________  __________
        Guzzi and Friedman & Babcock were on brief, for appellant.
        _____     __________________

            Charles Harvey,  with  whom  Harvey &  Frank  was  on  brief,  for
            ______________               _______________
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                    June 20, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      LYNCH, Circuit Judge.  A one-year-old boy sustained
                      LYNCH, Circuit Judge.
                             _____________

            severe,  disabling burns  when he  was left  alone in  a room

            where a Rival Company electric potpourri pot was operating on

            the  floor.   A  diversity  action  was brought  against  the

            company asserting claims under Maine law of strict liability,

            negligence and breach of warranty.  A  jury found in favor of

            the plaintiff  on the strict liability  and negligence claims

            and  awarded  $2.2 million.    The  company filed  post-trial

            motions alleging a host  of procedural and evidentiary errors

            and seeking  judgment as a  matter of law.   The trial  court

            denied the motions; the company appealed.  We affirm.

                                          I

                      We recite the facts as a jury could reasonably have

            found them. See Stevens  v. Bangor & Aroostook R.R.,  97 F.3d
                        ___ _______     _______________________

            594, 596 (1st Cir. 1996).  Gail Moulton,  plaintiff's mother,

            purchased  a Rival Model 3207  electric potpourri pot.  Water

            and dried flowers or scented liquid and wax are heated in the

            pot  and  allowed  to evaporate  to  perfume  the  air.   The

            potpourri  pot  was a  modified  version of  a  Rival kitchen

            product, a one-quart slow cooker.  The cover of the potpourri

            pot could not be  secured to the  pot and had  a hole in  its

            center,   approximately  one  and  three-quarters  inches  in

            diameter,  to allow fragrance to escape.  The date Rival sold

            this particular potpourri pot is not known.

                                         -2-
                                          2

                      Literature accompanying the  pot contained  several

            warnings,  including:  "Close  supervision is  necessary when

            any appliance is  used by  or near children."   Mrs.  Moulton

            read the  instructions and warnings and  placed the potpourri

            pot under  a table  in a  corner of  the  living room  hidden

            behind pottery and baskets.   In February 1995, she  left her

            one-year-old son Christopher in the living room while she got

            him a drink from  the adjoining kitchen.   She heard a  noise

            and returned to the living room to find  the child sitting on

            the floor in a pool of liquid.  The cover was off the pot, in

            the puddle of liquid potpourri.  She did not notice where the

            pot itself was.

                      No one knows exactly how the accident happened.  It

            is reasonable  to conclude either  that the pot  tipped over,

            spilling  the heated liquid, or that the child took the cover

            off.   In any event, the  lid came off  the pot, and  the hot

            liquid came into contact with the child's arm and hand.

                      Plaintiff's  left hand and arm were severely burned

            in the accident.  He spent over a month at the Shriners Burns

            Hospital in  Boston undergoing extensive treatment.   He will

            need extensive  medical treatment  in the  future.   His left

            hand  and arm are entirely covered by scar tissue, which does

            not grow like normal skin.  As he grows,  the inflexible scar

            tissue must be released by surgical incisions to  prevent his

            joints from growing  abnormally; skin grafts are used to fill

                                         -3-
                                          3

            in the gaps, and  a physical therapy regimen is  necessary to

            restore  movement to the hand.  This cycle of growth, surgery

            and physical therapy will  continue until the plaintiff stops

            growing, at around age twenty.

                      The  type   of  potpourri   pot  involved  in   the

            plaintiff's accident  evolved from earlier products.   Rival,

            which manufactures various  household appliances, decided  to

            market an electric potpourri pot.  Before placing the item on

            the  market, Rival  submitted the  item, which it  called the

            Model  3207,  for  evaluation  by  Underwriters  Laboratories

            ("UL"),  an  independent  not-for-profit  testing  laboratory

            which sets  and publishes  safety standards; these  standards

            are  often   adopted  by  the  American   National  Standards

            Institute.

                      UL  replied that the pot did  not meet the relevant

            safety standards.   UL sent Rival a letter in June 1987 which

            stated that the potpourri  pot heated liquids to temperatures

            exceeding the applicable standard,  and noted that, since the

            lid had no  means of being  secured and had  a one and  three

            quarters inch hole in its center, it could not be relied upon

            as  a barrier to prevent  scalding.  UL  therefore refused to

            "list" the  pot.1   However, by  the time  the UL  report was

            issued,  Rival  had already  set  production  to commence  in

                                
            ____________________

            1.  A "listed"  product would bear a  sticker indicating that
            the  laboratory  had  determined   that  the  product  met  a
            particular safety standard.

                                         -4-
                                          4

            August 1987.   Despite UL's  rejection, Rival  decided to  go

            ahead with its production plans anyway.

                      Rival submitted  the potpourri pot  to ETL  testing

            laboratories,  a  commercial (for  profit)  laboratory.   ETL

            issued a  report certifying  that the  potpourri pot  met the

            very  standard that UL had  reported the pot  failed to meet.

            The ETL report should have raised concerns on its face.   The

            stated temperature  in  the report  to which  the pot  heated

            liquids  was too high to  meet the applicable  standard.  The

            product was nonetheless put on the market.

                      The  Model 3207  potpourri pot  was the  only Rival

            product not  listed by  UL.   This apparently  troubled Rival

            officials.   They ordered various tests  to determine whether

            the  item  could be  modified  to  meet the  evolving  safety

            standards  adopted by  UL.   Rival's product  safety engineer

            reported that UL  had determined that  water hotter than  149

            degrees  Farenheit could cause serious skin  burns on contact

            and  that  the  potpourri   pot  was  designed  to  reach   a

            temperature of 174 degrees  Farenheit.  Rival was  also aware

            that UL took  the position that this product,  unlike cooking

            appliances, was  likely to  be "touched, bumped,  handled, or

            even upset  when used as intended."   Consequently, UL wanted

            limitations  placed on  the temperature  and quantity  of the

            liquid and  wanted a tight-fitting lid.   Rival's competitors

                                         -5-
                                          5

            produced  potpourri  pots with  locking  lids.   However,  no

            modifications were made to the Model 3207.

                      After the potpourri pot had  been on the market for

            a  short  time,  Rival  began  to  receive  reports  of young

            children  who  were burned  by  accidental  contact with  the

            heated potpourri mixture.2   Rival still made no modification

            to the design.   After 1991, the company changed  the package

            insert  to warn  consumers that the  contents of the pot were

            hot  and that  the pot  should be  kept out  of the  reach of

            children.3  Accidents continued to occur in the early 1990's.

            At some point, although the parties cannot pinpoint the exact

            date, a tag warning that the product could cause burns to the

            skin was  placed on  the cord  of the Model  3206, a  smaller

            version of the Model 3207 that lacked any cover.

                                          II

                      Plaintiff  filed suit against  the Rival Company in

            November 1995  in  federal court  in  Maine.   The  complaint

            alleged  that   Rival  was   legally   responsible  for   the

            plaintiff's  injuries  because  (1)  the  potpourri  pot  was

            defective  and  unreasonably dangerous  as  a  result of  its

            design; (2)  Rival was  negligent in designing  the potpourri

            pot and/or in failing  to warn users of the  product's design

                                
            ____________________

            2.  Some of the accidents involved  the Model 3207 (the model
            in this case), while others involved a similar model.

            3.  The  previous  warning  had  stated  that  users   should
            supervise closely when the pot was operated near children.

                                         -6-
                                          6

            defect;  and  (3)  the potpourri  pot  failed  to perform  in

            accordance  with the express warranty.  Rival defended on the

            grounds  that   the  product  was  safe,   the  warnings  and

            instructions  adequate, and  the blame  for the  accident lay

            with the child's  mother for  placing the pot  where her  son

            could reach it and then leaving him unattended.

                      After  a   one-week  trial,   the  jury   found  in

            plaintiff's  favor  on the  strict  liability  and negligence

            claims and awarded him $2.2 million in compensatory damages.

                                         III

            Post-Sale Duty to Warn
            ______________________

                      The primary  issue raised  by Rival is  whether the

            district  court erred  in instructing  the jury  on negligent

            post-sale duty to warn.  The trial judge charged: 

                      When a  manufacturer learns . .  . of the
                      dangers  associated  with the  reasonably
                      foreseeable use of its product after they
                      are  distributed,  the manufacturer  must
                      take reasonable steps to  warn reasonably
                      foreseeable  users  about  those  dangers
                      . . . .

            Rival  argues that the Maine Law Court has never imposed such

            a post-sale duty on manufacturers  and would not do so.   The

            plaintiff  responds   that  the  majority   of  jurisdictions

            recognize a negligence-based post-sale duty to warn and that,

            if faced with the issue, Maine would do the same.

                      We  do not reach the issue of whether the Maine Law

            Court  would recognize  a negligence-based post-sale  duty to

                                         -7-
                                          7

            warn because the  jury verdict is  adequately supported on  a

            strict liability  claim    and  the  damages  are  the  same.

            Further, no  issues concerning the  admissibility of evidence

            turn on this.

                      The trial  court separated  the theories of  strict

            liability,  negligence   and  warranty   both  in   the  jury

            instructions  and  in the  special  verdict form.    The jury

            stated  on  the  special  verdict  form  that  it  found  the

            defendant liable on a strict liability theory as well as on a

            negligence  theory.    Even  if  the  instructions  involving

            negligent post-sale duty  to warn were incorrect as  a matter

            of  Maine  law,  the  finding  of  liability  on  the  strict

            liability theory would be sufficient to support the judgment.

                      Rival  maintains  the  issue  must  nevertheless be

            reached.   It argues that  certain evidence  was admitted  at

            trial in  support of  the plaintiff's  theory that there  had

            been a negligent failure  to warn and that this  evidence was

            both  prejudicial and  irrelevant to  any of the  other legal

            theories  advanced by  plaintiff.   The evidence  in question

            concerns  what  the  defendant terms  a  subsequent  remedial

            measure: the  placement of  a warning  tag on  the electrical

            cord of the Model 3206 (which  is smaller than the Model 3207

            and  does not have a cover).4   The defendant argues that if,

                                
            ____________________

            4.  This modification  is not  a subsequent  remedial measure
            for  purposes of Rule 407  of the Federal  Rules of Evidence.
            That rule  does not  apply where,  as here, the  modification

                                         -8-
                                          8

            as it claims, Maine would not recognize a negligent post-sale

            duty  to  warn, this  evidence  was  improperly admitted  and

            sufficiently  prejudicial  to  warrant   a  new  trial.    We

            disagree.

                      First, the  trial court ruled that  the warning tag

            evidence  was relevant to the issue of whether there had been

            a negligent violation  of a pre-sale duty to  warn as well as

            of a post-sale duty  to warn.  Although  the sequence of  the

            placement of the warning  tags and the sale of  the appliance

            is unknown,  the defendant never  challenged this evidentiary

            ruling as to the pre-sale duty to warn.  The point is waived.

                      Furthermore,  even assuming  arguendo  that it  was

            error  to admit  the "cord tag"  evidence, "the  standard for

            reviewing  a district  court's nonconstitutional  error in  a

            civil suit requires that we find such error harmless if it is

            highly  probable that the error did not affect the outcome of

            the case."  Harrison v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 981 F.2d 25, 29
                        ________    ____________________

            (1st  Cir. 1992).      Here,  there  was  ample  evidence  of

            defective  design:   the  pot   heated  its  contents   to  a

            dangerously  high temperature and did not have a locking lid.

            Similar  products  produced by  other  companies  did have  a

            locking  lid.   The  refusal of  UL to  list  the product  is

            particularly telling.  We think it unlikely that the evidence

                                
            ____________________

            preceded  the accident involved in the  current lawsuit.  See
                                                                      ___
            Bogosian  v. Mercedes-Benz of N. Am., Inc., 104 F.3d 472, 481
            ________     _____________________________
            (1st Cir. 1997).

                                         -9-
                                          9

            of  cord tags placed on the Model 3206 affected the liability

            determination.

            Evidence of Other Accidents
            ___________________________

                      Plaintiff put  in evidence  of  eight accidents  in

            which  young  children  sustained  burns  after  coming  into

            contact with  the heated contents  of a Rival  potpourri pot.

            Defendant objected to the  introduction of this evidence, but

            the trial court overruled the objection.  Review is for abuse

            of discretion.  Espeaignnette v. Gene Tierney Co., 43 F.3d 1,
                            _____________    ________________

            8 (1st Cir. 1994).  In evaluating evidentiary rulings, "[t]he

            question  is   not  whether  we  would   strike  the  balance

            differently in  the first  instance, but whether  the balance

            actually struck is so  egregiously one-sided that it requires

            reversal."  Id.
                        ___

                      "Evidence of  prior accidents  is admissible .  . .

            only  if  the  proponent  of  the  evidence  shows  that  the

            accidents occurred under circumstances  substantially similar

            to those  at issue  in the  case at bar."   McKinnon  v. Skil
                                                        ________     ____

            Corp., 638 F.2d  270, 277  (1st Cir. 1981);  Marois v.  Paper
            _____                                        ______     _____

            Converting  Mach. Co.,  539 A.2d  621, 625  (Me. 1988).   The
            _____________________

            defendant  argues  that   there  is  insufficient  similarity

            between  the  earlier  accidents  and  plaintiff's  accident,

            because   the  circumstances  surrounding   the  spills  were

            different.  For example,  in one of the earlier  accidents, a

            child  knocked over  the table  where the  potpourri  pot was

                                         -10-
                                          10

            located; in four others, a child became entangled in the cord

            and pulled the pot  over.  Furthermore, two of  the accidents

            involved the Model 3206, a smaller pot with no cover at all.

                      "Substantial  similarity"  is  a  function  of  the

            theory of  the case.   See Ponder  v. Warren Tool  Corp., 834
                                   ___ ______     __________________

            F.2d  1553, 1560 (10th Cir.  1987).  Here,  the plaintiff was

            burned  by a  large quantity  of hot  liquid escaping  from a

            potpourri  pot without a  locking lid.   Plaintiff sought the

            introduction of the evidence  of the other accidents to  show

            that  the product as designed  allowed the rapid  escape of a

            significant  amount5 of  extremely  hot liquid  and was  thus

            defective.  Cf. Jackson  v. Firestone Tire & Rubber  Co., 788
                        ___ _______     ____________________________

            F.2d 1070, 1083 (5th Cir. 1986).  Under these  circumstances,

            there  was no  abuse of  discretion.   Cf. P.B.  Mutrie Motor
                                                   ___ __________________

            Transp., Inc.  v. Interchemical  Corp., 378 F.2d  447, 450-51
            _____________     ____________________

            (1st Cir. 1967).

            Medical Costs
            _____________

                      Plaintiff  presented  the  expert  testimony  of  a

            rehabilitation  specialist as  to  the  cost  of  plaintiff's

            future medical and rehabilitation needs.  Rival says that the

            witness was  not qualified and  that his testimony  lacked an

            adequate factual basis.

                                
            ____________________

            5.  Even electric potpourri pots with locking lids will allow
            the escape  of at  least  a very  small amount  of liquid  if
            tipped  over; the appliance  must have openings  to allow the
            fragrance to escape.

                                         -11-
                                          11

                      A trial court  has wide  discretion in  determining

            the admissibility  of expert  testimony, and we  will reverse

            its  decision only  when  there has  been  a clear  abuse  of

            discretion.   Stevens, 97 F.3d  at 600.   The educational and
                          _______

            work experience of plaintiff's expert made him well-qualified

            to testify concerning theplaintiff's future medical expenses.

                      A somewhat  closer question is whether  there was a

            sufficient  factual basis  for the  expert testimony.   Under

            Maine  law,   damages  may  not  be  recovered  if  they  are

            contingent  or speculative.   Michaud  v. Steckino,  390 A.2d
                                          _______     ________

            524,  530  (Me.  1978).    They  must  be  "determined  to  a

            probability."  Id.
                           ___

                      Rival  makes  a  two-pronged argument.    It  first

            claims  that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof

            on  the damages issue, because everyone  involved in the case

            expects  that the  Shriners Hospital,  which is  treating the

            child,  will continue to  provide all necessary  care free of

            charge.  This argument is foreclosed by the collateral source

            rule.   Under that rule, a plaintiff who has been compensated

            in whole or in part by a source independent of the tortfeasor

            is  nevertheless  entitled to  a  full  recovery against  the

            tortfeasor,  to  prevent   the  tortfeasor  from  gaining   a

            windfall.  Werner v. Lane, 393 A.2d 1329, 1335 (Me. 1978).
                       ______    ____

                      Defendant then argues that the plaintiff has failed

            to prove  future medical  expenses to a  reasonable certainty

                                         -12-
                                          12

            because  the testimony  of plaintiff's  rehabilitation expert

            was   different  from  that   of  the   plaintiff's  treating

            physician.   Plaintiff's  rehabilitation expert  presented an

            itemized  list of predicted future medical and rehabilitation

            expenses.   The plaintiff's treating physician testified that

            it  was  impossible  to  predict  the  number  or   types  of

            procedures the plaintiff  will need in the future because the

            need  for future care  will depend on  the plaintiff's growth

            pattern  and how the plaintiff improves over time.  There was

            an   adequate  foundation  for  the  rehabilitation  expert's

            testimony and the jury was therefore  free to credit it.  Cf.
                                                                      ___

            Stevens, 97 F.3d at 600.
            _______

                      As to  the misstatement  by plaintiff's  counsel in

            closing, when he mentioned "out of pocket" expenses, any harm

            was  ameliorated  by  the  trial court's  immediate  curative

            instruction.  See Conde  v. Starlight I, Inc., 103  F.3d 210,
                          ___ _____     _________________

            213 (1st Cir. 1997).

            Testimony of Rival's President
            ______________________________

                      Defendant claims  it was sandbagged when, at trial,

            plaintiff made use of a statement by a Rival official, from a

            deposition  in another  case, to  impeach defendant's  expert

            witness.  Defendant argues it had no opportunity to place the

            company  official's statement  in its  proper context.   This

            argument is  not well taken.  The defendant did not request a

            continuance  or  any  limiting  instructions.    Under  these

                                         -13-
                                          13

            circumstances, we cannot say the trial  court abused its wide

            discretion in admitting this evidence.

            Sufficiency of the Evidence
            ___________________________

                      Finally,   the  defendant  argues  that  the  trial

            court's  denials of its Rule  50(b) motion for  judgment as a

            matter of  law and of  its motion for  a new trial  should be

            reversed.   It claims  that the  evidence, together with  all

            reasonable   inferences   in   the   plaintiff's   favor,  is

            insufficient to support the verdict.  Review is de novo.  See
                                                            _______   ___

            Lama v. Borras, 16 F.3d 473, 477 (1st Cir. 1994).
            ____    ______

                      The defendant  maintains  that no  reasonable  jury

            could find that any  action by Rival was the  proximate cause

            of the plaintiff's injury.  The defendant points to the Maine

            Law  Court's  statement  that "a  product  bearing  .  . .  a

            warning,  which is safe for use if [the warning] is followed,

            is  not  in  defective  condition,  nor  is  it  unreasonably

            dangerous."  Bernier v. Raymark  Indus., Inc., 516 A.2d  534,
                         _______    _____________________

            538 (Me. 1986) (quoting  Restatement (Second) of Torts   402A
                                     _____________________________

            cmt. j  (1965)).   However, this language  explicitly applies

            only  to  claims that  a  product  is unreasonably  dangerous

            because it lacks an  adequate warning.  Bernier, 516  A.2d at
                                                    _______

            538.   That  was  not the  crux  of plaintiff's  claim  here.

            Plaintiff's  theory was  that  the potpourri  pot had  design

            defects  --  heating  its  contents to  an  excessively  high

            temperature and no  locking lid -- which made it unreasonably

                                         -14-
                                          14

            dangerous.  There was sufficient evidence supporting the jury

            finding of liability on that theory of the case.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                         -15-
                                          15