Clark v. R.E.L. Products, Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 August 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-3263,91-3263 |
| Citation | 972 F.2d 317 |
| Parties | Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 13,257 James T. CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R.E.L. PRODUCTS, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Paul D. Post, Topeka, Kan., for plaintiff-appellant.
David R. Buchanan, Brown & James, P.C., Kansas City, Mo., for defendant-appellee.
Before LOGAN, EBEL, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
In this diversity products liability action, Plaintiff appeals from a judgment granting Defendant's motion for a directed verdict at the close of all evidence in the jury trial. Plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries he claimed to have sustained as a result of a fall from a defective ladder manufactured and sold by Defendant. Clark v. R.E.L. Prods., Inc., 772 F.Supp. 1181 (D.Kan.1991). The district court found that the evidence failed to support submission of the case to the jury. We disagree. 1
In our review of a directed verdict, we apply the same standard applied by the district court: whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, presents a disagreement sufficient to mandate submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2512, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Mason v. Texaco, Inc., 948 F.2d 1546, 1554 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1941, 118 L.Ed.2d 547 (1992).
The record reflects that Plaintiff introduced evidence that (1) the ladder's side rails did not meet American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards, (2) decay was present at or near the location of the break when Plaintiff first received the ladder and removed it from the box, and (3) the ladder was manufactured and sold by Defendant in 1988, and Plaintiff received it in February or March of 1988. Defendant's expert wood technologist found evidence of decay at or near the place where the ladder broke. Defendant's experts testified the ladder side rails did meet ANSI standards.
Plaintiff testified that he fell from the ladder when a rung he stood on broke, leaving the ladder leaning against the wall at an angle. Defendant's experts disputed Plaintiff's version of the accident. "[A]lthough plaintiff was the only person present at the scene of the accident, it was impermissible for purposes of a directed verdict motion to disregard his testimony as to how the accident occurred." See Martin v. Unit Rig & Equip. Co., 715 F.2d 1434, 1440 (10th Cir.1983). Moreover, from the evidence that Plaintiff saw spots on the ladder, later identified as decay, when he first opened the box in which he received the ladder just a few months after the ladder left Defendant's possession or control, the jury reasonably...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Voelkel v. General Motors Corp.
...or circumstantial evidence. See Clark v. R.E.I., Products, Inc., 772 F.Supp. 1181, 1186 (D.Kan.1991), rev'd on other grounds, 972 F.2d 317 (10th Cir.1992). The Kansas Supreme Court has described this feature in the products liability setting, as These elements may be proven inferentially, b......
-
McKenzie v. Renberg's Inc., 94-5197
...or denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law, applying the same legal standard as the district court. Clark v. R.E.L. Prods., Inc., 972 F.2d 317, 317 (10th Cir.1992). In conducting this review, we must determine whether, " 'viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the no......
-
Hinds v. General Motors Corp.
...to mandate submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law. Clark v. R.E.L. Products, Inc., 972 F.2d 317 (10th Cir.1992). A directed verdict is justified only where the proof is all one way or so overwhelmingly preponderant in favor of the m......
-
Radford v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc.
...in reviewing the judgment as a matter of law, we apply the same standard applied by the district court, see Clark v. R.E.L. Prods., Inc., 972 F.2d 317, 317 (10th Cir.1992), and review de novo, see Pytlik v. Professional Resources, Ltd., 887 F.2d 1371, 1380 (10th Cir.1989). In doing so, we d......
-
Restatement Third, Torts: Products Liability; what hath the ALI wrought?
...Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). (8.) See, e.g., Clark v. R.E.L. Prod. Inc., 972 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. (9.) See, e.g., Allen, 8 F.3d 1470; Linegar, 909 F.2d 1150 (8th Cir. 1990). (10.) Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 5......