Norton v. Snapper Power
Equipment
806 F.2d 1545 (11th Cir.
1987)
Yeazell, pp. 53-55
Facts: Norton was hurt while using
a riding mower. He sued the
manufacturer. After a trial, a jury
found for the plaintiff on his product liability claim, but the judge entered a
judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed.
Issue: Did the district court err
in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict to the defendant?
Rule: A court should grant judgment
notwithstanding the verdict for the moving party only when it finds that,
having taken the evidence as most favorable to the non-moving party, reasonable
people could not possibly find for the non-moving party.
Analysis: The court finds that even
though the causation evidence in Norton’s favor is circumstantial, it is enough
such that reasonable people could disagree about whether Norton has enough
evidence to win.
Conclusion: The judgment
notwithstanding the verdict is reversed and the case is remanded.
Notes
and Problems
1. The trial court
and the appellate court disagree on whether the lack of a “dead man” device is
or could be a “defect”. The trial court
seems to zoom in on the fact that the plaintiff must prove not only causation
but also that it was a defect that caused the injury. The best evidence that the appellate court
was right was that the jury actually did find for the plaintiff. The only way they could have done that and
had their verdict correctly set aside would be if the jury itself was unreasonable.
2. I think the
difference is that a stone getting into the steering mechanism is entirely out
of the control of GM, but the dead man device could only have been installed by
Snapper.
3.
a. What looks
possible pretrial can “evaporate” at trial.
b. Realistically,
the verdict might rest on the fact that the jury has a sympathetic plaintiff
before them, and they feel that he shouldn’t go away empty handed even if that’s
wrong as a matter of law. The Court of
Appeals says that the jury could have found that the preponderance of
the evidence showed that the lack of a dead-man mechanism did cause the
accident.
4. I think judgment
will be entered for the plaintiff. I’m
sure the defendant will appeal.