55 F.4th 643
8th Cir.2022Background
- Mary Bayes received Biomet M2a Magnum large-diameter metal-on-metal hip implants in both hips in 2008; the left implant failed and was revised in 2011.
- Surgeons found severe joint and soft-tissue necrosis and metal ion contamination (metallosis); Mary has had seven revision surgeries, at least 12 dislocations, limited mobility, and likely future dislocations.
- Mary sued Biomet (May 2013), alleging negligent design and strict product liability; trial occurred in October 2020.
- The court instructed the jury on both strict liability (requiring a ‘‘reasonably anticipated use’’ finding) and negligence (requiring breach of ordinary care in design).
- The jury found for Biomet on strict liability but for Mary on negligence, awarding $20 million to Mary and $1 million to her husband; the district court denied Biomet’s JMOL/new trial/remittitur motions and Biomet appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether verdicts were inconsistent | Bayes argued jury properly found negligence though not strict liability given differing elements (strict-liability requires reasonably anticipated use) | Biomet argued the negligence verdict contradicted the strict-liability verdict and required a new trial or JMOL | Court: Not inconsistent; differing elements (reasonably anticipated use) could lead to negligence verdict but not strict-liability verdict — no principled inconsistency |
| Applicable standard of care for design claim | Bayes relied on ordinary care as given in instruction and experts showing industry failures; she contends this sufficed | Biomet argued Bayes needed to prove the specialized medical-device industry standard and failed to do so | Court: Did not decide which standard controls but held Bayes presented sufficient evidence under either standard to survive JMOL |
| Sufficiency of evidence of breach/design defect | Bayes pointed to specific design choices (metal-on-metal articulation; large head size) and inadequate testing as negligent choices causing metallosis | Biomet argued Bayes only attacked metal-on-metal implants generally and failed to tie defect to the M2a Magnum specifically | Court: Bayes presented admissible expert evidence tying Biomet’s specific design and testing choices to increased risk and the jury could reasonably find a design defect |
| Excessiveness of $20M pain-and-suffering award | Bayes argued injuries are severe, permanent, and justify large non-economic damages | Biomet argued award was excessive and remittitur/new trial required | Court: Deferential review; considering severity, multiple revisions, likely future dislocations, and comparable awards, $20M was not plainly excessive; remittitur denied |
Key Cases Cited
- SEC v. Quan, 817 F.3d 583 (8th Cir. 2016) (de novo review for inconsistent verdicts)
- Top of Iowa Co-op. v. Schewe, 324 F.3d 627 (8th Cir. 2003) (no new trial absent inability to reconcile jury findings)
- Bird v. John Chezik Homerun, Inc., 152 F.3d 1014 (8th Cir. 1998) (principle for reconciling verdicts)
- Gander v. Livoti, 250 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 2001) (stipulations require record evidence)
- Ryan Data Exch., Ltd. v. Graco, Inc., 913 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 2019) (JMOL standard and courts’ deference to jury)
- Washington v. Denney, 900 F.3d 549 (8th Cir. 2018) (JMOL standard exposition)
- United States v. Spears, 454 F.3d 830 (8th Cir. 2006) (resolve credibility in favor of verdict on JMOL review)
- Blevins v. Cushman Motors, 551 S.W.2d 602 (Mo. 1977) (negligent design duty/breach framework)
- Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 275 S.W.3d 748 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008) (comparison of specific design choices for causation/defect analysis)
- Emery v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 976 S.W.2d 439 (Mo. 1998) (factors to assess excessiveness/remittitur)
- Hudson v. United Sys. of Ark., Inc., 709 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2013) (deference to jury on subjective pain-and-suffering awards)