Michael Bavlsik v. General Motors, 870 F.3d 800

Background

On July 7, 2012 Michael Bavlsik, driving a 2003 GMC Savana, rolled the van and sustained a cervical-spinal cord injury becoming a quadriplegic after his head struck the roof despite wearing a seatbelt. Plaintiffs are Bavlsik and his wife Kathleen Skelly.
Plaintiffs sued GM in diversity court asserting strict liability (seatbelt system lacked three specific features), negligent design (including GM’s failure to perform rollover testing), and failure to warn. Plaintiffs sought past and future damages and consortium damages for Skelly.
Plaintiffs’ case relied primarily on expert Larry Sicher, who opined the van lacked a pretensioner, an all-belts-to-seat design, and a sliding-cinching latch plate, that GM performed no rollover testing pre-2003, and that testing would have shown the seatbelt system was inadequate and feasible alternatives existed that would have prevented Bavlsik’s injuries.
The jury (after an 11-day trial) found GM negligent solely for failing to test the seatbelt system and that this negligence caused Bavlsik’s injury; it rejected strict-liability and design-defect findings related to the specific features. Jury awarded $1 million—all for past damages.
The district court later granted GM’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JML), setting aside the verdict, and conditionally granted plaintiffs a new trial limited to damages (finding the award shockingly inadequate). Plaintiffs appealed the JML; GM cross-appealed the limitation of the new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was GM entitled to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs’ theory that GM negligently failed to conduct rollover testing?	Sicher’s testimony and the literature show GM did no rollover testing, testing would have revealed the system’s inadequacy, and feasible design alternatives existed that would have prevented the injury.	Testing would not have shown any effective alternative; evidence of alternatives is speculative and inadequate to prove causation.	Reversed JML: sufficient evidence existed for a reasonable jury to find breach, causation, and damages on the failure-to-test theory.
Whether the district court abused its discretion by ordering a new trial limited to future damages for Bavlsik and past/future damages for Skelly rather than a full retrial on liability as well.	Plaintiffs sought a new trial only on damages; the inadequate award justified retrial limited to damages.	GM argued the low damages and jury conduct indicate a compromise verdict, requiring a retrial of liability as well.	Affirmed partial new trial: district court did not abuse discretion; record did not clearly show an impermissible compromise verdict and damages and liability were separable.
Whether a jury verdict that finds liability on failure-to-test but rejects proposed design alternatives is internally inconsistent and mandates full retrial.	Plaintiffs relied on jury instructions that treated failure-to-test as an independent basis of liability; GM waived objections to interrogatories/verdict form.	GM argues inconsistency demonstrates compromise or confusion tainting the verdict.	Court declined to infer a compromise verdict where defendant did not timely object to form/instructions; inconsistent answers cannot be used to force full retrial.
Standard of review for renewed Rule 50(b) motion (JML) and for district court’s conditional new-trial decision.	N/A (procedural)	N/A (procedural)	JML reviewed de novo; the court must view evidence in the light most favorable to prevailing party. New-trial rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Key Cases Cited

Stults v. Am. Pop Corn Co., 815 F.3d 409 (8th Cir.) (Rule 50 de novo standard and appellate review context)
Ryther v. KARE 11, 108 F.3d 832 (8th Cir. 1997) (test for granting JML and viewing evidence in favor of nonmovant)
Browning v. President Riverboat Casino-Mo., Inc., 139 F.3d 631 (8th Cir. 1998) (JML proper only when no probative facts support verdict)
Stanley v. Cottrell, Inc., 784 F.3d 454 (8th Cir.) (elements of negligent-design claim under Missouri law)
McKnight ex rel. Ludwig v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 36 F.3d 1396 (8th Cir.) (failure-to-test as a viable theory under Missouri law)
Larsen v. General Motors Corp., 391 F.2d 495 (8th Cir.) (manufacturer’s duty to use reasonable care in vehicle design)
Gasoline Prods. Co. v. Champlin Ref. Co., 283 U.S. 494 (U.S.) (permitting retrial on separate issues when issues are distinct and separable)
Boesing v. Spiess, 540 F.3d 886 (8th Cir.) (factors probative of compromise verdict and appellate review)
Phav v. Trueblood, Inc., 915 F.2d 764 (1st Cir.) (waiver due to failure to object to special interrogatories precludes later claim that inconsistent answers show compromise verdict)