Allen Plyler v. Whirlpool Corporation
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8528
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Plyler sued Whirlpool alleging the microwave started a fire that injured him.
- Trial proceeded on strict products liability and negligent recall claims; jury ruled for Whirlpool.
- Fire occurred about seven years after Plyler purchased and installed the microwave above the stove.
- Fire origin designated near the top of the microwave; examiner deemed the cause undetermined.
- Whirlpool’s recall addressed a defect—fire hazard when splattered food remained and microwave ran; recall efficacy argued at trial.
- District court denied Plyler’s new-trial motion; Plyler appealed challenging causation, lay-perception testimony, and divorce-related questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the verdict against the manifest weight of the evidence? | Plyler contends record shows causation by defect. | Whirlpool showed no causation; rebuttal evidence supported verdict. | No; verdict supported by the evidence. |
| Did the court err by limiting Plyler's lay testimony on cause? | Plyler’s interpretations were necessary inferences from observations. | Lay testimony limited to perceptions; inferences require expertise. | No; Rule 701 permitted perceptions, not expert inferences. |
| Was it proper to allow cross-examination about Plyler's divorce in relation to emotional distress? | Divorce had no relevance to distress from the fire. | Divorce potentially contributed to distress; relevant under FRE 401. | Yes; district court did not abuse discretion; within probative value balancing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Galvan v. Norberg, 678 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 2012) (extremely deferential standard for new-trial rulings)
- Whitehead v. Bond, 680 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2012) (new-trial motion reviewed for miscarriages of justice)
- Wipf v. Kowalski, 519 F.3d 380 (7th Cir. 2008) (need for causation evidence; not just favorable evidence)
- Lowe v. Consol. Freightways of Del., 177 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 1999) (weight of the evidence standard; sufficiency and weight distinctions)
- United States v. Wantuch, 525 F.3d 505 (7th Cir. 2008) (lay opinion admissibility; avoid specialized explanations)
- United States v. Conn, 297 F.3d 548 (7th Cir. 2002) (lay testimony limitations on interpretation)
- Cerabio LLC v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 410 F.3d 981 (7th Cir. 2005) (probative value vs. prejudice in evidentiary rulings)