Westerman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 75-3885
| Decision Date | 01 August 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-3885,75-3885 |
| Citation | 577 F.2d 873 |
| Parties | 24 UCC Rep.Serv. 1141 Joan WESTERMAN, as personal representative of the Estate of Michael Westerman, Deceased, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Sam Daniels, Miami, Fla., for defendant-appellant, cross-appellee.
Marvin Weinstein, Miami Beach, Fla., Robert Orseck, Miami, Fla., for plaintiffs-appellees, cross-appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before THORNBERRY, GODBOLD and FAY, Circuit Judges.
This is a wrongful death action in which the defendant, Sears, Roebuck and Company (Sears), appeals a $901,510 final judgment for the plaintiff, Joan Westerman, as personal representative of the Estate of Michael Westerman, deceased. As grounds for this appeal Sears asks us to decide:
I. Whether Florida would apply its Wrongful Death Act, Fla.Stat. 768.16 et seq., in a products liability case where the product was sold in Florida to a Florida citizen but the fatal injuries occurred in Texas.
II. Whether on the present record the trial court correctly charged the jury on a manufacturer's duty to warn.
III. Whether the trial judge erred in holding that contributory negligence, assumption of the risk, and misuse of the product were not available defenses and refusing to instruct the jury on those defenses.
IV. Whether Sears is entitled to a new trial on both liability and damages pursuant to this Court's decision in Edwards v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, 512 F.2d 276 (5th Cir. 1975).
On cross appeal by Mrs. Westerman we are asked to consider:
V. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in entering various remittiturs of the verdicts returned by the jury.
For the following reasons we affirm the judgment of the district court but modify it with respect to the amount of damages.
In 1973, Mrs. Westerman sued Sears in a Dade County, Florida, trial court. In her Subsequently, the cause was removed to United States District Court in the Southern District of Florida. Diversity jurisdiction existed because plaintiff was a Florida citizen and Sears was incorporated or had its principal place of business in New York and Illinois.
three count complaint, she sued as personal representative for her husband's wrongful death (Count I), as mother and next friend to recover for her son, David's, personal injuries (Count II), 1 and individually, to recover for her own personal injuries (Count III). The complaint alleged that the automobile accident was caused by a defective tire and sought recovery under the theories of negligence and breach of express and implied warranties. Later, the complaint was amended to include the theory of strict liability. Sears' answer and amended answer denied the material allegations of the complaint and asserted contributory negligence, assumption of the risk, the statute of limitations, and misuse of the product as defenses.
The trial court ordered a bifurcated trial on liability and damages and ruled prior to trial that Texas "substantive tort law is applicable to the issues of negligence and strict liability." As to the warranty claims, the trial judge held since both Texas and Florida had adopted the Uniform Commercial Code, "its warranty sections would apply." The trial court also ruled that if the two states interpreted a Code section differently, the Florida interpretation would prevail "because a more significant part of the sales transactions occurred within Florida." He also ruled that Florida law governed as to what defenses were available in warranty actions.
During the liability trial plaintiff abandoned her negligence claims and case went to the jury on the warranty and strict liability claims. The jury returned verdicts for plaintiff on all claims.
An issue contested during the damage trial and here is whether the recoverable damages in this wrongful death action were governed by the Texas or the Florida wrongful death act. Sears claimed the Texas act applied and plaintiff the Florida statute. The major difference between the two acts is that in Texas recovery may be had for decedent's pain and suffering but not for the mental pain and suffering of beneficiaries because of decedent's death. The converse is true in Florida.
The trial court reserved ruling on this choice of law issue and submitted a special verdict form to the jury which required the jury to assess damages separately for all disputed damage elements. The jury returned the following verdict:
I. For the estate of Michael
Westerman
a. Medical and funeral expenses $ 2,500
b. Conscious pain and suffering
of decedent (element of recovery
in Texas only) 200,000
II. (A) For the minor son of decedent
David, for his father's
death
a. Loss of parental companionship
and for his mental pain
and suffering resulting from
his father's death 500,000
b. Loss of services, moral advice
education, care, counsel
instruction and guidance 500,000
(B) For the wife of decedent
Joan, for her husband's death
a. Loss of companionship and
protection and her mental
pain and suffering resulting
from her husband's death 350,000
b. Loss of services and care 200,000
III. For the personal injuries of Joan
Westerman 560,000
----------
TOTAL $2,312,500
Upon a motion for new trial and/or remittitur which the trial court granted and
plaintiff accepted under protest the judge reduced the damages as follows:
I. a. Medical and funeral expenses
reduced to $ 1,510
b. Pain and suffering of
decedent (if recoverable) 50,000
II. (A)
a. Loss of parental companionship,
etc. reduced to 200,000
b. Loss of services, etc. reduced
to 150,000
(B)
a. Recovery of wife for loss, left
intact 350,000
b. Recovery of wife for loss, left
intact 200,000
----------
TOTAL $ 951,510
The trial court then ruled the Florida wrongful death act was applicable (thereby excluding I(b) $50,000 from the allowed recovery) and the final judgment totaling $901,510 was entered. This appeal and cross appeal followed.
Mrs. Westerman, a Miami, Florida, schoolteacher, and her husband saw a television commercial entitled "The Baja Run in 1969" which advertised Sears Steel-Belted Radial Tires. At that time they owned a 1969 Chevrolet which they had purchased new and had then traveled 15,000 miles. Not needing new tires at the time but drawn by the representations made in this commercial, the couple went to a nearby Sears store in Hollywood, Florida, to look into the purchase of the advertised tires. Wanting to get "the best tires (they) could get" and after being told how wonderful the tires were by the salesperson and being shown the owner's manual and guarantee, the Westermans purchased four new tires for the Chevrolet. On that date, December 29, 1969, the Chevrolet had traveled 15,082 miles.
Mrs. Westerman was given the Owner's Manual which had the following language on the front cover:
The manual itself contained the following language:
The manual also represented the radial was safe at high speeds and there was practically no chance of a puncture or blow-out.
Sears also gave Mrs. Westerman a 40,000-mile guarantee which stated:
"SEARS ALLSTATE RADIAL
Passenger Tire Guarantee
SEARS Guarantees the Allstate Radial Tire, when used on passenger cars or station wagons, as follows:
TREAD-LIFETIME GUARANTEE
Guaranteed Against: All failures of the tire resulting from defects in material or workmanship.
For How Long: The life of the original tread. What SEARS Will Do: In exchange for the tire, replace it, charging only the proportion of current price that represents tread used.
TREAD-WEAR OUT AND ROAD HAZARD GUARANTEE
Guaranteed Against: Tread wear out and all failures of the tire resulting from road hazards. For How Long: 40,000 miles.
What SEARS Will Do: Repair nail punctures at no charge. In the case of failures or tread-wear out, at SEARS option, in exchange for the tire, replace it, or give you a refund, charging in either case only the proportion of current price that represents mileage used.
ADJUSTING. . . .
SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO."
Mrs. Westerman testified that she knew the tire pressure recommendations were important and kept the owner's manual in her glove compartment. She also indicated the tire pressures were checked more often than every three months.
In June, 1972, the three Westermans left for their summer vacation in the Chevrolet. Before leaving Miami the car was serviced at their Chevrolet dealer and Mrs. Westerman took it to Sears where the tires were looked at and a car top luggage rack was purchased. Mrs. Westerman testified Sears told her, "You have plenty of tread left."
On July 2,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reilly v. U.S.
...is entitled to only one full recovery, no matter how many different legal grounds may support the verdict"); Westerman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 577 F.2d 873, 879 (5th Cir.1978) (the "law does not sanction double recoveries"); Muise v. Abbott, 160 F.2d 590, 592 (1st Cir.1947) (similar).13 Th......
-
Pulte Home Corp., Inc. v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc., 89-205-CIV-T-17A.
...that absent a public policy prohibition, Florida will uphold an express choice of law provision in a contract. Westerman v. Sears, Roebuck, & Co., C.A., 577 F.2d 873 (1978). However, as many of the transactions in this dispute lack such a provision, this Court must examine the relevant fact......
-
U.S. Industries, Inc. v. Touche Ross & Co.
...F.2d 1168, 1178 (8th Cir.1986), rev'd on other grounds, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 915, 99 L.Ed.2d 107 (1988); Westerman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 577 F.2d 873, 879 (5th Cir.1978). 54 If a federal claim and a state claim arise from the same operative facts, and seek identical relief, an award ......
-
Wheeler v. Sunbelt Tool Co., Inc.
...Co. (1973), 190 Neb. 546, 209 N.W.2d 643.) In some jurisdictions, misuse is regarded as an affirmative defense. (Westerman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (5th Cir.1978), 577 F.2d 873; Belfry v. Anthony Pools, Inc. (1977), 80 Mich.App. 118, 262 N.W.2d 909 (implied warranty).) Other jurisdictions ag......