Court Opinion

ID: 9489142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:06:50.497248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:20.897465
License: Public Domain

NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Under the circumstances in this case, I believe the Bayliner Buccaneer 180 was defective and the district court’s denial of the motion for a new trial on the issue of negligence was based on an errant analysis that constituted a clear error of judgment. We should reverse the denial of Plaintiffs’ motions for judgment as a matter of law and new trial and find for the Plaintiffs on special verdict question 1, while remanding the case for trial on special verdict question 2 and the remaining issues not reached by the jury. Accordingly, I dissent.
I agree with my colleagues that this court applies the same standard in reviewing decisions on motions for judgment as a matter of law as the district court applies in deciding these motions. See Monette v. AM-7-7 Baking Co., 929 F.2d 276, 280 (6th Cir.1991). In the case at bar the district court accurately explained that:
A district court has authority to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict to protect against completely unjust and unsupported results. But this authority is limited by a strict standard of review. It is not enough that the district court disagrees with the verdict. Rather, a judgment notwithstanding the verdict “may be granted only if, viewing the admissible evi*801dence most favorable to the party opposing the motion, a reasonable trier of fact could draw only one conclusion.” Hill v. Spiegel, Inc., 708 F.2d 233, 237 (6th Cir.1983) (further citations omitted).
J.A. at 40. This court has defined the inqui-iy to be made on Rule 50 motions as follows:
[T]he district court must determine whether there was sufficient evidence presented to raise a material issue of fact for the jury. As applied in this context, “sufficient evidence” will be found unless, when viewed in the light of those inferences most favorable to the non movant, there is either a complete absence of proof on the issues or no controverted issue of fact upon which a reasonable person could differ.
Monette, 929 F.2d at 280 (citations omitted).
I also recognize that the disposition of a motion for a new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion; the trial court should deny the motion if the verdict is one that reasonably could be reached, regardless of whether the trial judge might have reached a different conclusion were he the trier of fact. United States v. L.E. Cooke Co., 991 F.2d 336, 343 (6th Cir.1993). Again the district court correctly notes:
The court has discretion to grant a new trial if the verdict appears to be against the great weight of the evidence. Hawley, supra, 958 F.2d at 725. The Court must weigh the evidence, but should not set aside a jury verdict merely because the jury could have drawn different conclusions or because other results are “more reasonable.” Id. at 742; Portage II v. Bryant Petroleum Corp., 899 F.2d 1514, 1523 (6th Cir.1990). The jury verdict should be accepted if it is one which could reasonably have been reached. Portage II, supra 899 F.2d at 1523-24.
J.A. at 43-4. A district court can be said to have abused its discretion if this court has “a definite and firm conviction that the trial court committed a clear error in judgment.” Logan v. Dayton Hudson Corp., 865 F.2d 789, 790-91 (6th Cir.1989).
Applying these standards of review and understanding the seriousness of granting a judgment as a matter of law or new trail, I find that reversal is appropriate in this case.
I
With respect to Plaintiffs’ allegation of product defect, the jury was posed the following question: “Did the Defendant, Bayliner Marine Corporation, manufacture a defective product.” Along with that question, the jury was given instructions on Plaintiffs’ claim. The instructions, consistent with Michigan and maritime law, read:

“DEFECTIVE CONDITION” DEFINED

A product is in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user when it has a propensity for causing physical harm beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary user or consumer, with the ordinary knowledge common to the foreseeable class of users as to its characteristics. A product is not defective or unreasonably dangerous merely because it is possible to be injured while using it.

DESIGN DEFECT

In determining whether the Bayliner Buccaneer 180 sailboat is defective because of its design, you must balance the utility of design against the magnitude of the risk.
You can find the defendant liable only if it, knowing the risk, did not act reasonably in putting the product on the market. To determine whether the defendant acted unreasonably in putting the boat on the market, you must consider and balance the factors which make up the design process, including the following:
1. The usefulness and desirability of the product;
2. The availability of other and safer products to meet the same need;
3. The likelihood of injury and its probable seriousness;
4. The obviousness of the danger;
5. The common knowledge and normal public expectation of the danger (particularly for established products);
*8026. The avoidability of injury by care in use of the product (including the effect of instructions or warnings); and
7. The ability to eliminate the danger without seriously impairing the usefulness of the product or making it unduly expensive.

“NORMAL USE”

You will find the Bayliner Buccaneer 180 Sailboat to be defective only if it was unreasonably dangerous for its “normal” use. The normal use of a product includes all reasonable and foreseeable uses, including foreseeable misuse.
J.A. at 214-13.
Given the special verdict question posed to the jury, and given the unchallenged instructions used to answer that question, I do not believe the evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the Defendant was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. In fact, the only reasonable conclusion is that the Buccaneer 180 was unreasonably dangerous for its normal use and there appears to be no genuine issue of material fact on that point. On the issue of design defect, the jury was mistaken as matter of law and the court should have awarded a judgment for the Plaintiffs notwithstanding the jury’s verdict.
I reach my conclusion by reviewing the Plaintiffs’ evidence related to defect. The Plaintiffs presented expert and opinion testimony that indicated the following. The Buccaneer 180 has an eight square inch hole cut into the centerboard trunk of its hull. This hole, approximately twelve and one-quarter inches above the boat’s bottom, four inches above the water line when the boat is empty, one and seven-eighths inches above the water line when the boat has 800-900 pounds on board, cannot be seen from any point outside or inside the craft. As a natural phenomenon, when the boat is at sail, water surges up into the centerboard trunk. Water entering through the centerboard trunk hole flows into an enclosed subfloor bilge chamber, which is not visible from the cockpit of the craft. There is no self bailing mechanism in the chamber. Tests demonstrated that intake of water through the centerboard trunk is exponentially progressive, (with or without weight beyond stated capacity) lowering the centerboard trunk hole to the waterline, eventually causing down flood. None of the thirteen competitor centerboard boats examined by Sponberg had holes similar to Bay-liner’s, and those with openings had them either in full view of the cockpit or were equipped with self bailing mechanisms.
Bayliner provided no expert or other testimony to show that the boat did not take on water or that the design, which did not allow observation of the accumulation of the water or permit safe removal while at sail, had a utility, which when balanced against the risks, was warranted. Further, when Bay-liner discovered the “problem” with the boat, it conducted a recall/retrofit, thereby acknowledging that there was a concern. The majority’s focus on the cross-examination of Sponberg, highlighting weaknesses in his testimony, does not challenge the certainty that the Buccaneer 180 would take on immoderate amounts of water, which could not be observed, thereby creating an unreasonable danger. Further, the comments of Wolf, Wright and Manting on cross-examination focus on the use of the boat the day of the accident, not the alleged defect.
Bayliner suggests that the evidence it presented regarding its “theory of why the boat took on water: overloading the boat; choosing to sail in threatening weather and five-foot seas; sailing six or seven miles offshore, in an offshore wind, which is stronger and causes higher waves offshore,” rebutted Plaintiffs evidence of defect. Bayliner’s Br. at 20-1. The majority seems to adopt this line of analysis. To the contrary, I believe that this evidence is not evidence of “why the boat took on water;” it merely explains the factual scenario which caused this boat to sink more quickly. The Plaintiffs’ experts and sailing tests demonstrated that the boat would “take on water” absent these specific facts. The majority points to the testimony of Villalon as criticizing Sponberg’s tests. Villalon, however, was not an expert in this area and offered no contradictory tests of his own. Further, his “reasons” for the accident relate to the conditions and activities that day and not to the boat’s condition when it left the factory.
Defendant also hints that the evidence it presented regarding the actions of the pas*803sengers on board (drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana) as well as the sailing conditions relate to design defect in that they show an unforeseeable use. Although foreseeable use is part of the equation in determining defect, the appropriate query is the foreseeable “normal” use (including misuse) by an ordinary, foreseeable user. A product is defective, or not, when it leaves a manufacturer’s hands, irrespective of the ultimate use to which it is put. See generally Restatement (Second) Torts § 402A. I believe the majority has erred in allowing these facts to weigh in their decision on the issue of defect. While indeed they are related to ultimate liability, and may preclude the Plaintiffs from recovery, they are not dispositive on the issue of whether the Buccaneer 180 is defective.
I maintain that foreseeable use can not be defined by what the user did in the case before the court. Certainly, if absent the user’s misuse the product would not cause uncontemplated injury, then the product is not defective merely because an injury occurred. If, however, as in this case, the product had a propensity for causing uncon-templated harm in other foreseeable use or misuse circumstances, then it is per se defective, and the misuse by the party in the case before the court should be considered in determining proximate cause of the injury and comparative negligence of the parties, not defect.
The Plaintiffs suggest that their evidence of defect was uneontroverted. The Defendant argues, however, “[t]he law does not require defendant to put on evidence to rebut plaintiffs’ theory. Plaintiffs had the burden of proof on defective condition_” Bayliner’s Br. at 20. Moreover, the district court stated, and the majority agrees, “that the proper duty of the jury [was] to accept or reject testimony in whole or in part, ...” in referring to the jury instructions. J.A. at 43. As partially noted on page 794 of the majority opinion, the jury instructions read:
In weighing the effects of a discrepancy always consider whether it pertains to a matter of importance or an unimportant detail and whether the discrepancy results from innocent error or intentional falsehood. After making your own judgment, you will give the testimony of each witness such weight, if any, as you may think it deserves. You may in short, accept or reject the testimony of any witness in whole or in part.
J.A. at 210.
These instructions seem to indicate that the jury was free to disregard, in its entirety, the evidence of defect presented by Plaintiff, even if uncontested. Certainly, a jury has that right. See Quock Ting v. United States, 140 U.S. 417, 11 S.Ct. 733, 35 L.Ed. 501 (1891); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 346 F.2d 707, 726 (6th Cir.1965), rev’d on other grounds, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966). Nevertheless, we must balance the sovereign right of the jury to weigh the evidence and reach a verdict, against the responsibility of the court to reject that verdict if it is not supported by the evidence. These two responsibilities coexist in the Seventh Amendment, as they were recognized in common law.1 Consequently, it is my opinion that a jury may disregard all evidence presented by a litigant, even uncontroverted evidence, to reach its verdict. It is, however, the responsibility of the court to insure that the jury faithfully and lawfully executes its duty as the fact finder. If the evidence clearly points to a single conclusion, which is the only reasonable conclusion, and the jury adopts an alternate view, it is incumbent on the court to protect the process and award a judgment as a matter of law. In this case the relevant evidence pointed to only one logical conclusion — that the boat was defective. A judgment as a matter of law should have been granted on the issue of defect.
II
The standard for reviewing the district court’s denial of a motion for new trial is abuse of discretion. Plaintiffs assert that the court abused it discretion by relying on evidence not related to issues presented (evi*804dence of proximate cause) in ruling on its motion. I agree. With respect to the defective product claim, because I believe that the jury’s verdict is opposite the only reasonable conclusion, a judgment as a matter of law was proper and a new trial is not necessary on that issue. With respect to the negligence claims, however, a new trial is in order because the jury’s verdict is against the great weight of the evidence and the district court abused its discretion on review. The court’s references to irrelevant evidence are substantial because they demonstrate that the court engaged in an errant analysis of the issues and application of the law. The court was charged to determine whether there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s special verdicts regarding product defect and negligence. The court responded that there was substantial evidence and went on to insinuate that the substantial evidence was that of negligence of the parties on the boat. Again, I believe this evidence relates to proximate cause and comparative negligence, issues which the jury never reached, and not defect or negligence. Accordingly the court’s reliance on this evidence is a clear error in judgment and abuse of discretion. See Davis v. Jellico Community Hosp. Inc., 912 F.2d 129, 132 (6th Cir.1990). A new trial should have been granted on the issue of negligence and other unresolved issues.

. "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial be jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” U.S. Const. Amend. VII.