Weisgram v. Marley Co.
528 U.S. 440 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, a court of appeals has the authority to direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law for a verdict-loser when it determines that evidence was erroneously admitted at trial and the remaining, properly admitted evidence is insufficient to support the jury's verdict.
Facts:
- On December 30, 1993, a fire occurred at the home of Bonnie Weisgram, resulting in her death from carbon monoxide poisoning.
- Her son, Chad Weisgram, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Marley Company, the manufacturer of an electric baseboard heater located near the fire's origin.
- Weisgram alleged that a defect in the Marley heater caused the fire and his mother's death.
- To prove the defect and causation, Weisgram's entire case relied on the testimony of three expert witnesses.
Procedural Posture:
- Chad Weisgram sued Marley Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota.
- During the trial, the District Court overruled Marley's objections and admitted Weisgram's expert testimony.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Weisgram.
- Marley filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and an alternative motion for a new trial, both of which the District Court denied.
- Marley Company, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, with Weisgram as the appellee.
- The Eighth Circuit reversed, finding the expert testimony was inadmissible under Daubert, the remaining evidence was insufficient, and directed the District Court to enter judgment as a matter of law for Marley.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts on the appellate court's authority to direct such a judgment.
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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 permit a federal appellate court to direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law against a party who won a jury verdict, when the appellate court concludes that the verdict was based on expert testimony that was erroneously admitted at trial and the remaining evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
Yes. A court of appeals has the discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 to direct entry of judgment as a matter of law when a jury's verdict is rendered unsupportable by the appellate court's determination that key evidence was erroneously admitted. The court rejected the argument for an automatic remand for a new trial, finding no meaningful distinction between a case where the evidence was insufficient as presented and one where it becomes insufficient upon the deletion of inadmissible testimony. Citing Neely v. Martin K. Eby Constr. Co., the Court affirmed that appellate courts have this power and should exercise informed discretion. Fairness concerns do not mandate a new trial, as the party relying on the evidence was on notice of the admissibility challenge and had a full and fair opportunity to present their case. Post-Daubert, litigants are expected to present their best expert evidence from the outset, rather than expecting a second chance if their initial evidence fails.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the authority of federal appellate courts to terminate litigation when a verdict is based on inadmissible evidence, rather than automatically remanding for a new trial. It reinforces the significance of the Daubert standard by placing a heavy burden on plaintiffs to ensure their expert testimony is reliable and admissible from the start. The ruling discourages litigants from 'sandbagging' or holding back evidence in anticipation of a second chance, promoting judicial efficiency by allowing appellate courts to resolve cases definitively when the evidentiary record is legally insufficient. Consequently, trial strategy must now more carefully account for the possibility that an appellate court will not only strike key evidence but also enter a final judgment against the verdict-winner.
Unlock the full brief for Weisgram v. Marley Co.