Linden v. CNH AMERICA, LLC
2012 WL 832987, 673 F.3d 829, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5357 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court's erroneous refusal to dismiss a potential juror for cause is not a basis for reversing the verdict if the party subsequently uses a peremptory challenge to remove that juror, as this action cures the error and results in an impartial jury.
Facts:
- Thomas Lowell Linden, Jr. was operating a bulldozer manufactured by CNH America, LLC.
- While grading a steep bank, the bulldozer rolled over.
- The bulldozer's seatbelt, a component part, allegedly failed.
- Linden was thrown from the bulldozer's rollover protection system.
- The bulldozer landed on his legs, causing severe injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas Linden, Jr. sued CNH America, LLC (CNH) and Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc. (IMMI) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
- The district court dismissed the claims against IMMI pursuant to a statute of repose.
- During trial on claims of inadequate warnings, design defect, and manufacturing defect, the district court granted CNH's motion for a directed verdict on the manufacturing defect claim.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of CNH on the remaining claims of inadequate warnings and design defect.
- The district court entered a final judgment for CNH based on the jury's verdict.
- Linden (appellant) appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, with CNH 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:
Does a trial court's erroneous refusal to dismiss a potential juror for cause constitute reversible error if the party subsequently uses a peremptory challenge to remove that juror, and the resulting jury is impartial?
Opinions:
Majority - Shepherd, J.
No. A trial court's erroneous refusal to dismiss a juror for cause is not reversible error if the party cures the error by using a peremptory strike and is subsequently tried by an impartial jury. The court first acknowledged that the district court erred by failing to dismiss Prospective Juror Wild for cause, as the juror indicated a clear bias against the plaintiff and was never rehabilitated. However, citing the Supreme Court's controlling precedent in United States v. Martinez-Salazar, the court held that this error was harmless. The Supreme Court established that if a party elects to cure a judge's error by exercising a peremptory challenge, they have not been deprived of any constitutional or rule-based right, provided the jury that ultimately hears the case is impartial. The party is faced with a strategic choice, and using a peremptory challenge to remove a biased juror is a principal purpose of such challenges. Because Linden used a peremptory strike to remove Wild, no biased juror sat on the case, and the error was cured.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the Supreme Court's Martinez-Salazar rule within the Eighth Circuit, clarifying that forcing a party to use a peremptory strike to correct a judge's error is not a structural error requiring automatic reversal. This places a significant strategic burden on trial counsel, who must choose between using a finite peremptory challenge to remove a biased juror or preserving the error for appeal at the risk of that juror sitting on the panel. The ruling prioritizes the ultimate impartiality of the seated jury over penalizing judicial errors that occur during the selection process. Consequently, it makes appeals based on such jury selection errors extremely difficult to win unless a party can show they were forced to accept a biased juror after exhausting all peremptory challenges.
