995 N.E.2d 740
Mass.2013Background
- Robin Aleo (29) used a Banzai Falls inflatable in-ground pool slide sold by Toys “R” Us; the slide collapsed during a head-first descent and Robin suffered fatal cervical injuries.
- Plaintiff Michael Aleo (widower/administrator) sued Toys R Us alleging negligence, breach of implied warranty, wrongful death, and G. L. c. 93A (93A later dismissed by stipulation).
- At trial the jury awarded $2,640,000 compensatory damages and $18,000,000 punitive damages after finding negligence, breach of warranty, and gross negligence; Toys R Us appealed.
- Key factual evidence: Toys R Us imported ~4,000 slides; independent lab certificates did not show testing under 16 C.F.R. § 1207 (federal pool slide safety standard); slide manual/label limited weight to 200 lbs though § 1207 required 350 lbs and head-first testing; jury was instructed to treat lack of § 1207 testing as admitted.
- Trial rulings: judge excluded certain hearsay (police report statements, medical record statements), limited defendant expert opinion based on nonreplicative tests, and allowed plaintiff to argue the slide was "illegal" given admission of § 1207 and lack of testing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of evidence that decedent "dived" (misuse) | Exclude hearsay and unreliable expert tests; misuse not proved | Admit police/medical statements and expert experiments showing diving to rebut foreseeability | Court affirmed exclusion of police/medical hearsay and limited expert opinion because declarants lacked personal knowledge and tests did not replicate accident |
| Permitting plaintiff to call the slide "illegal" | Term justified by admission that slide was not tested under § 1207 | Label prejudicial and improper | Affirmed: reasonable inference from admitted regulation and lack of testing; counsel argument was permissible and jury instructed arguments are not evidence |
| Sufficiency of evidence for negligence and breach of warranty | Toys R Us failed to ensure compliance with § 1207; expert testimony established defect and causation | Toys R Us relied on vendor warranty and Bureau Veritas testing to show reasonable care | Affirmed: evidence supported finding Toys R Us violated § 1207, and negligence finding supports breach of implied warranty of merchantability |
| Excessiveness of $18M punitive damages | Punitive award grossly disproportionate to compensatory damages and civil penalties | Award justified by reprehensibility, repeated conduct, and deterrence; ratio within single digits | Affirmed: punitive award not grossly excessive under BMW/State Farm analysis (reprehensibility high; punitive/compensatory ≈7:1; comparison to potential CPSC civil penalties not dispositive) |
Key Cases Cited
- BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (framework for reviewing excessiveness of punitive damages)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (guideposts for punitive damages review; single-digit ratios generally acceptable)
- Altman v. Aronson, 231 Mass. 588 (definition of gross negligence)
- Guinan v. Famous Players-Lasky Corp., 267 Mass. 501 (statutory/regulatory violation as evidence of negligence)
- Bouchie v. Murray, 376 Mass. 524 (admissibility of medical-record statements)
- Labonte v. Hutchins & Wheeler, 424 Mass. 813 (need for judicial scrutiny of punitive award magnitude)