Estate of Williams v. Schwarze Industries, Inc.
2017 Ark. App. 255
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Anderson D. Williams, a highway employee, was killed when a highway-department sweeper backed over him while he lay unconscious behind the vehicle.
- The Estate (through Williams’s widow, Twyla A. Williams) sued for wrongful death alleging defective design, negligence, and breach of warranty; claims were against APSH and Schwarze (manufacturer/seller of completed sweeper); Navistar was dismissed on summary judgment.
- Plaintiff alleged the sweeper had a large rear blind zone and that backup beepers were ineffective; plaintiff’s expert had proposed a rear convex mirror as a feasible remedy.
- After a jury trial, the jury found defendants not liable on strict liability, negligence, and fitness-for-purpose theories; judgment entered for defendants on September 11, 2015.
- Plaintiff moved for JNOV; the trial court denied the motion, concluding the jury verdict had substantial evidence support. Plaintiff appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding plaintiff failed to preserve the JNOV challenge because she did not make a proper directed-verdict motion under Ark. R. Civ. P. 50(a) at the close of the defendants’ case and did not state specific grounds as required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury verdict lacked substantial evidence, requiring JNOV | The Estate argued evidence showed defective design (rear blind zone) and that a convex mirror would have prevented the accident, so verdict was against preponderance | Defendants argued there was sufficient conflicting evidence for the jury to find no defect or negligence | Held for defendants: Court declined to reach merits because preservation failed; jury verdict affirmed as supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether plaintiff preserved JNOV by making a proper directed-verdict motion under Rule 50(a) | Plaintiff contended comments at trial and responses to defendants’ renewed motions sufficed as a directed-verdict motion | Defendants and court maintained Rule 50(a) requires a timely motion at close of opposing case stating specific grounds; plaintiff’s remarks were insufficient and plaintiff later abandoned the convex-mirror theory | Held for defendants: plaintiff failed to satisfy Rule 50(a)/(b) requirements; appeal on JNOV denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. State, 364 Ark. 448 (Ark.) (directed-verdict preservation requires a timely, specific motion stating grounds; bare or responsive remarks are insufficient)