Keeler v. Richards Mfg. Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 June 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1201,86-1201 |
| Citation | 817 F.2d 1197 |
| Parties | Prod.Liab.Rep.(CCH)P 11,416 Patricia Ann KEELER and William Joseph Keeler, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. RICHARDS MANUFACTURING CO., INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
E. Earl Harcrow, Tim G. Sralla, Shannon, Gracey, Ratliff & Miller, Fort Worth, Tex., for defendants-appellants.
Roger Turner, T. Ray Guy, Jennifer A. Youpa, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before GARZA, WILLIAMS and GARWOOD, Circuit Judges.
Defendants Richards Manufacturing Company and Richards Medical Company (collectively Richards) are appealing the judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs Patricia Keeler and her husband, William Keeler. The jury found that Richards had defectively manufactured a compression hip screw which broke after being implanted in Mrs. Keeler's hip. The Keelers were awarded over five hundred thousand dollars in damages after 32% of the total award was deducted as that part of the damages caused by the fault of Mrs. Keeler. Richards claims that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict.
Patricia Keeler broke her hip on the evening of July 18, 1982, when she accidentally slipped and fell in a friend's kitchen. She was taken to Plano General Hospital in Plano, Texas. Dr. Neal C. Small, an orthopedic surgeon at the hospital, decided to implant a compression hip screw into Mrs. Keeler's broken hip in order to assist in the healing process. 1 After the operation, Mrs. Keeler's hip appeared to be mending normally, and she did not experience any unusual complications as a result of the surgery.
On November 27, 1982, Mrs. Keeler entered Gaston Episcopal Hospital for additional surgery unrelated to her hip injury. A few days prior to her admission to the hospital, Mrs. Keeler reported experiencing a great deal of pain in her hip. Dr. William C. Head, Mrs. Keeler's regular orthopedic surgeon, examined her and discovered that the compression hip screw had broken. The broken screw was replaced with a hip prosthesis. This surgical implant eventually proved to be unsuccessful, and a second hip prosthesis had to be installed in August 1984.
Mr. and Mrs. Keeler filed this diversity action against Richards, the manufacturer and distributor of the broken hip screw, in the United States District Court. The Keelers alleged that the break in the compression hip screw was the result of a manufacturing or design defect, while Richards claimed that Mrs. Keeler had misused the screw by putting more than the recommended amount of weight on her hip. The jury determined that the screw had been defectively manufactured and that the defect was a producing cause of appellees' damages. The jury also found that appellants' defective manufacture of the compression hip screw breached an express warranty and an implied warranty of merchantability.
The jury did not make a finding that the breach of warranty was committed knowingly or that the compression hip screw was defectively designed. Additionally, Mrs. Keeler was determined to have been misusing the screw at the time the screw apparently broke because she put excess pressure on it by lifting a portable television set. 2 The jury found her thirty-two percent at fault for the damages she sustained.
The jury awarded Mrs. Keeler the following amounts of damages:
A. Past Physical Pain and Mental
Anguish $100,000.00
B. Future Physical Pain and Mental
Anguish $100,000.00
C. Past Physical Impairment $100,000.00
D. Future Physical Impairment $150,000.00
E. Past Medical Expenses $ 39,400.00
F. Future Medical Expenses $150.000.00
G. Past Disfigurement $ 50,000.00
H. Future Disfigurement $100,000.00
Mr. Keeler was compensated for his losses as follows:
A. Past Lost Consortium $ 20,000.00
B. Future Lost Consortium $ 20,000.00
Appellants moved for a directed verdict before submission of the case to the jury and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. They further requested a remittitur of the damages portion of the jury award or a new trial. The district court denied all of appellants' motions and, on February 26 1986, entered judgment against appellants in the amounts of $536,790 plus prejudgment interest for Mrs. Keeler, $27,200 plus prejudgment interest for Mr. Keeler, and $22,000 for attorneys' fees. There was timely notice of appeal.
Appellants claim that the district court erred in denying their motion for directed verdict, motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and alternatively, motion for new trial on the ground that the evidence presented at trial did not support the jury's finding that the compression hip screw was defectively manufactured. A jury verdict, however, may be reversed and a new trial ordered only if the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence. Smith v. Transworld Drilling Co., 773 F.2d 610, 612 (5th Cir.1985). "The decision to grant or deny a motion for new trial generally is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed unless there is an abuse of that discretion or misapprehension of the law." Dixon v. International Harvester Co., 754 F.2d 573, 586 (5th Cir.1985).
The standard for granting a motion for directed verdict or motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is even more stringent:
[T]he Court should consider all of the evidence ... but in the light and with all reasonable inferences most favorable to the party opposed to the motion. If the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the Court believes that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict, granting the motion is proper. On the other hand, if there is substantial evidence opposed to the motions, that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motions should be denied.... [I]t is the function of the jury as the traditional finder of the facts, and not the Court, to weigh conflicting evidence and inferences, and determine the credibility of witnesses.
Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374-75 (5th Cir.1969) (en banc). After reviewing the record, we find that there is ample evidence to support the jury's verdict and that the district court did not err in refusing to grant appellants' motions.
Two of appellees' expert witnesses, John Harcourt and Dr. Gary Hansen, testified that the lag screw component of the compression hip screw contained at least four irregularities which they considered to be manufacturing defects. They also concluded that any one of the identified defects could have been a producing cause of Mrs. Keeler's injuries. The first manufacturing defect they found concerned the length of the lag screw's internal threads. Appellants' design specifications required the lag screw's internal threads to be not more than 1.125 inches in length. John Harcourt testified that he measured the subject lag screw and found it to be 1.1875 inches in length. Dr. Hansen also examined the subject lag screw and confirmed that, in his opinion, the internal threads were "not in conformance with blueprint specifications."
Mr. Harcourt and Dr. Hansen testified that the presence of excess internal threads would weaken the lag screw by creating an area of unintentional stress concentration. They stated that, as a result of this defect, the lag screw's resistence to fatigue failure was decreased, which eventually caused the screw to break.
The second defect was evidenced by testimony that an unacceptable amount of metal debris was present in the lag screw at the time it was inserted into Mrs. Keeler's hip. John Harcourt testified that this debris would interfere with the surgeon's ability to compress the screw properly, thereby allowing the bones greater than normal movement. In turn, this failure to tighten properly would place a higher level of stress on the screw. Mr. Harcourt considered the resultant stress to be a producing cause of the screw's failure.
The claim of a third defect was based upon evidence that the subject screw's radius was slightly less than that of an exemplar hip screw furnished by Richards. John Harcourt testified that the smaller radius would result in greater stress concentration and that the subject screw was not as strong as it otherwise should have been. Finally, as a fourth defect, there was also some testimony that the hip screw failed to comply with the American Society of Testing Materials' (A.S.T.M.'s) standard of 35% ductility.
Appellants undertook to discredit the value and accuracy of the evidence concerning the alleged manufacturing defects. In effect, they are only relitigating the issues that already have been decided by the jury. They claim, for example, that appellees' experts were incorrect in their measurements of the lag screw and that the internal threads were less than 1.125 inches in length. They also contend that any debris which may have been present in the lag screw could not have been a producing cause of Mrs. Keeler's injuries because x-rays revealed that the hip screw had functioned properly in pulling Mrs. Keeler's bones together and that the hip appeared to be healing satisfactorily. The jury, however, heard these contentions and chose to believe appellees' witnesses rather than those of appellants. There is sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Richards defectively manufactured the subject compression hip screw, and the district court correctly decided not to "second-guess" the jury's verdict by granting any of appellants' motions. 3
Appellants claim that there is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kociemba v. GD Searle & Co.
...F.2d 172, 174-75 (8th Cir.1988); Goldstein v. Manhatten Industries, Inc., 758 F.2d 1435, 1448 (11th Cir.1985); Keeler v. Richards Mfg. Co., 817 F.2d 1197, 1202 (5th Cir.1987); Kemp, 651 F.Supp. at 508. Accordingly, courts have held that it is appropriate to set a remittitur so as to permit ......
-
Eichman v. Fotomat Corp.
... ... SelecTV of California, Inc., 833 F.2d 1360, 1362 (9th Cir.1987). We will affirm the ... v. Three Phoenix Co., 813 F.2d 234, 240-41 (9th Cir.1987); see also, Mir. v ... ...
-
Eichman v. Fotomat Corp., 87-6532
... ... SelecTV of California, Inc., 833 F.2d 1360, 1362 (9th Cir.1987). We will affirm the ... v. Three Phoenix Co., 813 F.2d 234, 240-41 (9th Cir.1987); see also, Mir. v ... ...
-
Bernard v. IBP, Inc. of Nebraska
...banc) overruled on other grounds, Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc., 107 F.3d 331 (5th Cir.1997) (en banc).12 Keeler v. Richards Mfg. Co., 817 F.2d 1197, 1200 (5th Cir.1987).13 Id.14 29 C.F.R. § 785.19.15 The Code of Federal Regulations provides for meal periods as follows:(a) Bona fide me......