Allen Plyler v. Whirlpool Corporation
2014 WL 1762087, 751 F.3d 509, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8528 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An appellate court will not grant a new trial when a jury verdict is supported by evidence in the record, nor will it overturn a trial court's evidentiary rulings, such as limiting lay testimony to direct observation or allowing questions about alternative causes of emotional distress, absent a clear abuse of discretion.
Facts:
- Allen Plyler purchased a Whirlpool microwave oven and installed it in his house.
- In 2001, Whirlpool issued a recall for the microwave model due to a defect that posed a fire hazard only if the microwave contained splattered food and was running.
- Whirlpool mailed recall notices to registered consumers and issued public news announcements.
- Plyler stated he never received a recall notice but could not recall if he had submitted the product registration card.
- On October 10, 2006, Plyler used the microwave at 9:00 p.m.; approximately eight hours later, while the unit was off, a fire started inside it.
- Plyler testified that he kept the microwave very clean and free of splattered food.
- As a result of the fire, Plyler suffered physical injuries to his elbow and knee and claimed to experience post-traumatic stress disorder.
- Sometime after the fire, Plyler and his wife divorced.
Procedural Posture:
- Allen Plyler sued Whirlpool Corporation in federal district court on claims of strict products liability and negligent recall.
- The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge, and the case was tried before a jury.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Whirlpool on all claims.
- Plyler filed a motion for a new trial, arguing the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence and challenging two evidentiary rulings.
- The magistrate judge denied Plyler's motion for a new trial.
- Plyler (appellant) appealed the denial of his motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with Whirlpool as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial based on arguments that the jury's verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the court made erroneous evidentiary rulings?
Opinions:
Majority - Rovner, Circuit Judge
No, the district court did not abuse its discretion. An appellate court's review of a denial for a new trial is extremely deferential, and a new trial is warranted only if the jury's verdict resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Here, the jury was presented with conflicting evidence regarding causation; Whirlpool's expert testified the fire-causing defect required conditions that Plyler himself testified were not present (a running, dirty microwave). The jury was entitled to accept Whirlpool's evidence and find it did not cause the fire. Similarly, the jury could reasonably conclude that Whirlpool's recall efforts, which were far more successful than average, met the standard of due care. The court's evidentiary rulings were also proper: limiting Plyler's testimony to his observations, not his interpretations, correctly applied Federal Rule of Evidence 701 for lay witnesses, and allowing questions about his divorce was relevant under Rule 401 to explore alternative causes for the emotional distress damages he claimed.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high standard of deference appellate courts afford to jury verdicts and trial court evidentiary rulings. It underscores the difficulty appellants face in overturning a verdict by arguing it is against the weight of the evidence, especially when the jury was presented with competing factual accounts. The case also provides a practical application of Federal Rules of Evidence 701 and 401, clarifying the line between permissible lay observation and impermissible expert inference, and affirming the relevance of exploring alternative causes for a plaintiff's claimed damages.
