Case Notes

JNOV Improperly Granted When Trial Judge Weighs Evidence

A Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV) should not be issued if evidence exists for the jury to make a finding of liability. Curico v. Caterpillar, Inc., Opinion No. 25688, S.C. Sup.Ct., July 28, 2003.

The decedent was killed while working on a track loader manufactured by Caterpillar, Inc. His estate sued Caterpillar, under two different strict liability theories, claiming: 1) there was a design defect and 2) there were inadequate warnings. The jury issued a general verdict and awarded the plaintiff $500,000. The defendant moved for a JNOV. The trial court set aside the verdict, holding that the track loader contained adequate warnings regarding its proper use, and the defendant was not liable for any injuries suffered by the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, which held that the verdict was properly set aside on both theories. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed and held that there was evidence to support an inadequate warning verdict. The high court noted that because the jury returned a general verdict, it was only required to find that there was evidence supporting a verdict on either the design defect theory or the inadequate warnings theory. It held that in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, evidence existed to support an inadequate warning verdict by the jury because the evidence showed that although a warning existed, it was contradicted by other instructions and warnings given by the defendant. The court stated that the trial judge, in considering the JNOV, should only be concerned with the existence of evidence, not its weight or credibility, which were issues for the jury to consider. Because the trial judge improperly weighed the evidence rather than considering its existence, the grant of the JNOV was improper.

The publisher of this newsletter is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, financial, investment advisory or other professional services, and this publication is not meant to constitute legal, accounting, financial, investment advisory or other professional advice. If legal, financial, investment advisory or other professional assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought.

Attorney's Fees Awarded for Breach of Warranty of Merchantability

A plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act where she is able to prove: 1) consumer status, 2) existence of the warranty, 3) breach of the warranty, and 4) that the breach was a producing cause of damages. Elliott v. Kraft Foods North America, Inc., No. 14-02-00243-CV, Ct.App.Tex., 14th District, Houston, July 24, 2003.

Joyce Elliott sued Kraft Foods after she bit into a rock in cereal manufactured by Kraft. Elliott claimed, inter alia, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). Elliott also sought attorney's fees under the DTPA. The trial court awarded Elliott damages in the sum of $5,000, but did not award attorney's fees. After the trial, Elliott and Kraft each filed a request for the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Elliot then appealed, arguing that: 1) the trial court abused its discretion by failing to award Elliott attorney's fees for breach of an implied warranty under the DTPA because Elliott presented evidence that Kraft breached an implied warranty of merchantability and 2) harmful error resulted from the trial court's failure to file proper findings of fact and conclusions of law. Despite many efforts from the appellate court, the trial court failed to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellate court proceeded to consider Elliott's appeal without the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellate court first held that Elliott did not suffer harm from the trial court's failure to file its findings of fact and conclusions of law. It considered that Elliott was able to present her issues on appeal properly without the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the appellate court determined it was able to decide the attorney's fee issue without them. With respect to that issue, the appellate court held that Elliott could recover attorney's fees only if she prevailed under the DTPA. To recover under the DTPA on a breach of warranty, Elliott was required to prove: 1) consumer status, 2) existence of the warranty, 3) breach of the warranty, and 4) that the breach was a producing cause of damages. Without the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the appellate court surmised that the trial court concluded there was a rock in the cereal found by Elliott; that the rock was in the cereal due to no fault of Elliott; and that the rock caused injury to Elliott. The appellate court concluded that an implied warranty of merchantability existed and Kraft breached that warranty. Furthermore, it concluded that Elliott was entitled to recover attorney's fees under the DTPA because she was able to show that she was a consumer and the breach caused her damages. The court remanded the matter to determine the amount of attorney's fees.

JNOV Improperly Granted When Trial Judge Weighs Evidence

A Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV) should not be issued if evidence exists for the jury to make a finding of liability. Curico v. Caterpillar, Inc., Opinion No. 25688, S.C. Sup.Ct., July 28, 2003.

The decedent was killed while working on a track loader manufactured by Caterpillar, Inc. His estate sued Caterpillar, under two different strict liability theories, claiming: 1) there was a design defect and 2) there were inadequate warnings. The jury issued a general verdict and awarded the plaintiff $500,000. The defendant moved for a JNOV. The trial court set aside the verdict, holding that the track loader contained adequate warnings regarding its proper use, and the defendant was not liable for any injuries suffered by the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, which held that the verdict was properly set aside on both theories. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed and held that there was evidence to support an inadequate warning verdict. The high court noted that because the jury returned a general verdict, it was only required to find that there was evidence supporting a verdict on either the design defect theory or the inadequate warnings theory. It held that in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, evidence existed to support an inadequate warning verdict by the jury because the evidence showed that although a warning existed, it was contradicted by other instructions and warnings given by the defendant. The court stated that the trial judge, in considering the JNOV, should only be concerned with the existence of evidence, not its weight or credibility, which were issues for the jury to consider. Because the trial judge improperly weighed the evidence rather than considering its existence, the grant of the JNOV was improper.

The publisher of this newsletter is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, financial, investment advisory or other professional services, and this publication is not meant to constitute legal, accounting, financial, investment advisory or other professional advice. If legal, financial, investment advisory or other professional assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought.