McDougall v. CRC Industries, Inc., 0:20-cv-01499

Cynthia McDougall was killed in a car accident caused by Kyle Neumiller, who was allegedly intoxicated from inhaling CRC Industries' computer dust remover (CRC Duster).
David McDougall, Cynthia's spouse and trustee, sued CRC Industries, alleging liability for design defect and failure to warn, among other theories.
A jury found CRC liable for design defect (but not failure to warn), apportioned 22.5% of the fault to CRC and 77.5% to Neumiller, and awarded $7.75 million to McDougall.
CRC moved post-trial for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and to amend the judgment to limit its liability to its proportion of fault; McDougall moved to add prejudgment and post-judgment interest.
The court denied CRC's motions, finding sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict, and partially granted McDougall’s motion regarding interest, increasing the total judgment and clarifying interest calculations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty of Care & Foreseeability	CRC's manufacture/sale of CRC Duster created a foreseeable risk to third parties	No duty owed for harm caused by third-party’s intentional misuse	CRC owed a duty given foreseeable risk from misuse of its product
Defective Design	Sufficient evidence of defect and foreseeability; alternative design proof unnecessary	No standard-of-care expert; no alternative design shown; misuse unforeseeable	Evidence sufficient; expert and alt. design not strictly required
Fault Apportionment	Full damages recoverable; cannot apportion between negligent and intentional tortfeasors	Liability should be limited to CRC’s 22.5% fault per jury	No apportionment; full judgment against CRC proper
Prejudgment/Post-judgment Interest	Entitled to statutory prejudgment & post-judgment interest on full award	Disputes scope/calculation of interest and timing	McDougall entitled to full statutory interest, as calculated by court

Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc., 346 N.W.2d 616 (Minn. 1984) (sets standard for design defect claims under Minnesota law and covers foreseeability and alternative design)
Domagala v. Rolland, 805 N.W.2d 14 (Minn. 2011) (describes exception to no-duty rule where defendant’s conduct creates a foreseeable risk of injury to a foreseeable plaintiff)
Whiteford by Whiteford v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., 582 N.W.2d 916 (Minn. 1998) (discusses manufacturer’s duty to protect users and foreseeable third parties)
Lubbers v. Anderson, 539 N.W.2d 398 (Minn. 1995) (provides Minnesota’s proximate cause standard for torts)
Kallio v. Ford Motor Co., 407 N.W.2d 92 (Minn. 1987) (addresses whether alternative-design evidence is required in design defect cases)