Babcock v. General Motors Corp.
2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 16167, 53 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1225, 299 F.3d 60 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party forfeits its right to challenge inconsistent jury verdicts on appeal if it fails to object to the inconsistency after the verdict is read and before the jury is discharged, as required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 49(b) and 51.
Facts:
- Paul A. Babcock, III, was driving a pickup truck manufactured by General Motors Corporation (GM) on February 21, 1998.
- The truck went off the road and struck a tree, resulting in injuries that rendered Babcock a paraplegic.
- When Babcock was first seen after the accident, his seat belt was not fastened around him.
- The plaintiff's case was based on the theory that Babcock had been wearing his seat belt, but it unbuckled during the crash due to a condition known as 'false latching'.
- On June 15, 1999, Babcock died as a result of complications from his injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Frances A. Babcock, as executrix for the estate of Paul A. Babcock, sued General Motors Corporation (GM) in federal district court, alleging negligence and strict liability.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- The jury returned a verdict finding GM liable on the negligence count but not liable on the strict liability count.
- The district court entered judgment for the plaintiff based on the verdict.
- GM filed post-trial motions for a new trial and for judgment as a matter of law, which the district court denied.
- GM, as defendant-appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party forfeit its right to appeal a jury verdict on the grounds of internal inconsistency if it fails to object to the alleged inconsistency before the trial court discharges the jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge.
Yes. A party forfeits its right to appeal based on inconsistent jury verdicts by failing to object before the jury is discharged. The court held that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(b), any objection to the inconsistency of verdicts must be made after the verdict is read and before the jury is dismissed. This allows the trial court to resolve the inconsistency by either returning the jury for further consideration or ordering a new trial. GM failed to make such a timely objection. The court's finding of forfeiture was reinforced by GM's failure to properly object to the jury instructions under Rule 51, which requires a party to state objections distinctly before the jury retires. The court declined to apply the 'plain error' doctrine, finding that the alleged error was not obvious under New Hampshire law and did not threaten a miscarriage of justice. The court also affirmed the trial court's evidentiary rulings, holding that evidence of Babcock's habit of always wearing a seatbelt was admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 406, and that the plaintiff's expert testimony met the reliability and relevance standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Analysis:
This case strongly reinforces the procedural requirement for contemporaneous objections in trial practice. It serves as a stark reminder to trial attorneys that they cannot remain silent in the face of a perceived error in jury instructions or an inconsistent verdict and later use that error as a basis for appeal. The decision underscores the principle of judicial efficiency by forcing parties to address correctable errors at the trial level, preventing them from strategically 'sandbagging' by saving an objection as an 'appellate weapon.' This ruling solidifies the waiver/forfeiture doctrine, making it exceedingly difficult to overcome an unpreserved error on appeal absent a showing of 'plain error,' which is a very high standard to meet in civil cases.
