Darlene Ward Pellecer, Individually and as the Administrator of the Estate of Carlos F. Pellecer, and Cynthia Pellecer Keppler, Linda Pellecer Seward, and Bonnie Pellecer Perez v. Werner Co., a Corporation of Delaware, 414 So.3d 554

This wrongful death/product liability case arose after Carlos F. Pellecer died following a fall from an aluminum extension ladder at his home in New Orleans in 2019.
Pellecer's estate and family sued, alleging the ladder (bearing the "Werner" brand) was unreasonably dangerous, causing the fatal fall; they invoked four LPLA product defect theories.
The defendants, "Werner Co." and "New Werner Holding Co., Inc." ("Werner Defendants"), denied responsibility, arguing they neither manufactured nor distributed the 1991 ladder, having acquired the "Werner" brand and assets through a 2007 bankruptcy of the original manufacturer.
The jury found the Werner Defendants were, under Louisiana law, the "manufacturers" of the ladder and thus liable, awarding over $5 million in damages (allocation: 50% to Werner, 50% to the bankrupt entity, "Old Ladder").
The Werner Defendants appealed, contesting the denial of summary judgment, directed verdict, JNOV, and the admission of an expert's marketing testimony, as well as the trial court's interpretation of "manufacturer" under LPLA.
The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed all judgments, holding there was a reasonable factual basis for the jury’s finding that the Werner Defendants held themselves out as manufacturers.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Interpretation of "Manufacturer" under LPLA	Werner held itself out as manufacturer by branding and marketing, thus is liable.	Only the original, 1991 manufacturer is liable; post-bankruptcy asset buyers are not.	Statute covers entities holding themselves out as manufacturers, including Werner Defendants.
Control/Branding of Ladder	Werner branding and logo led consumers to believe new company was still manufacturer.	No control or contact with ladder since made pre-bankruptcy; did not label as their own.	Sufficient evidence Werner held itself out as manufacturer at time of sale/use.
Admissibility of Marketing Expert Testimony	Expert opinion relevant to jury's determination of consumer perception and branding.	Inappropriate for expert to opine on legal question of status as manufacturer.	Trial court did not abuse discretion; expert testimony was permissible.
Denial of Directed Verdict/JNOV	Sufficient evidence supported all findings; issues were for the jury.	No reasonable jury could find liability against Werner Defendants.	No abuse of discretion; jury’s findings supported by reasonable basis.

Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So. 2d 840 (La. 1989) (manifest error/clearly wrong standard for appellate review of factual findings)
Campbell v. Tork, Inc., 870 So.2d 968 (La. 2004) (abuse of discretion standard for new trial motions)
Simon v. American Crescent Elevator Co., 767 So.2d 64 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2000) (JNOV/directed verdict standard)
Gillispie v. R.D. Werner Co., Inc., 375 N.E.2d 1294 (Ill. 1978) (prior litigation on similar ladder defect)