Linden v. CNH AMERICA, LLC
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5357
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Linden sued CNH America for injuries from a bulldozer incident; seatbelt allegedly defective in manufacture/design/warnings; IMMI seatbelt later dismissed due to repose; district court allowed CNH claims to proceed and later granted a Rule 50(a) directed verdict on manufacturing defect; jury returned verdict for CNH on remaining claims; Linden appealed asserting errors in the directed verdict, jury instructions, and failure to strike a juror.
- Linden asserted three theories of liability at trial: inadequate warnings, design defect, and manufacturing defect; the district court dismissed the manufacturing defect claim and instructed the jury on the other theories; the verdict was CNH’s on the two remaining claims.
- The district court held a Rule 50(a) motion for a directed verdict on the manufacturing defect claim and rejected Linden’s later argued theories; the court also instructed the jury on several CNH-proposed instructions and rejected Linden’s proposed instruction.
- The Eighth Circuit evaluated (1) whether Linden’s appeal was forfeited by lack of post-trial motions, (2) the validity of the directed verdict on manufacturing defect, (3) challenged jury instructions, and (4) failure to strike a prospective juror for cause; the court affirmed the district court on all issues.
- The court concluded Linden’s appeal was properly before it, the directed verdict on manufacturing defect was proper (the remaining theories were design defects), the jury instructions were not reversible error as a whole, and the failure to strike for-cause juror was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appeal threshold under Unitherm; is the appeal barred? | Linden may appeal; Unitherm does not bar | Unitherm bars review without postverdict motion | Appeal properly before court |
| Directed verdict on manufacturing defect claim correct? | Evidence supported manufacturing defect (two theories) | Defect was design-related; no manufacturing departure | Affirmed; manufacturing defect claim dismissed as design defect |
| Validity of jury instructions challenged by Linden | Instructions misstate Iowa law; Linden lacked proper guidance | Instructions fair, adequate; no error overall | No reversible error in jury instructions |
| Failure to strike prospective juror for cause | Wild should have been dismissed for cause | Discretionary denials may be harmless; peremptory strike used later | Harmless error; verdict upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (U.S. 2006) (limits postverdict appeals to Rule 50/59 contexts; not a blanket bar to all appeals)
- Cone v. W. Va. Pulp & Paper Co., 330 U.S. 212 (U.S. 1947) (judgment under Rule 50 follows judge’s assessment of case at trial)
- United States v. Amerson, 938 F.2d 116 (8th Cir. 1991) (bias jurors; per se reversible error discussed but Martinez-Salazar overruled)
- Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2000) (peremptory challenges can cure for-cause error; not a structural error)
- Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 174 N.W.2d 672 (Iowa 1970) (age/type of use relevant to defect analysis)
- Doty v. Olson, 795 N.W.2d 99 (Iowa Ct.App. 2010) (safety code/custom evidence admissibility to negligence)
- Brown v. Sandals Resorts Int'l., 284 F.3d 949 (8th Cir. 2002) (instruction adequacy and record support standard)
- Moses v. Union Pacific R.R., 64 F.3d 413 (8th Cir. 1995) (industry standards as evidence of due care)