Monique Roman v. Western Manufacturing, Inc.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17353
5th Cir.2012Background
- Dorel Roman was injured when a Western Predator Pump’s Cam-Lok hose coupling allegedly failed, causing the hose to strike him during operation.
- Roman sued Western under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) alleging unreasonably dangerous construction/production and, alternatively, design defects.
- Evidence included defense and plaintiff experts on hydraulic pressure, materials, and potential future earnings; trial was before a magistrate judge with Daubert-style challenges.
- The jury found Western liable only on the construction/composition theory and apportioned 30% fault to Western and 70% to Roman, with total damages of $1,665,000 (later adjusted to $499,500 after comparative fault).
- After trial, the district court increased the past medical expenses from $15,000 to $168,804.22; Western challenged this as Seventh Amendment additur.
- Roman died after filing the notice of appeal; his estate was substituted as party appellant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony | Roman contends Daubert Rule 702 standards were met and evidence reliable. | Western argues experts were unqualified or unreliable and should have been excluded. | Admissibility upheld; district court acted within its discretion |
| Sufficiency of evidence for construction/composition defect | Roman established deviation from Western’s specifications via expert testimony and circumstantial evidence. | Western claims no legally sufficient basis for a deviation or defect. | Sufficient evidence supported a construction/composition defect finding |
| Design defect liability under 9:2800.56 | Alternative design would have mitigated risk; Roman offered design options. | Roman failed to prove feasible alternative design and burden/utility tradeoffs. | No reversible error; design defect claim rejected |
| Comparative fault allocation under LPLA | Roman’s conduct may be a factor; some fault should be assigned to Western for defect. | Most fault should rest with Western due to the defect and warnings. | Appellate review preserved; 30% Western / 70% Roman allocation upheld as reasonable |
| Seventh Amendment issue on past medical expenses | Remittitur necessary to reflect actual medical costs and evidence. | Remittitur/additur violates re-examination clause unless exception applies. | District court’s remittitur permissible; Seventh Amendment not violated |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court 1993) (test of reliability and scientific validity for expert testimony)
- Paz v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc., 555 F.3d 390 (5th Cir. 2009) (Rule 702 reliability standards)
- Valencia v. Gilbane Building Co., 600 F.3d 424 (5th Cir. 2010) (flexible Daubert standard and expert admissibility)
- Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Trippe Mfg. Co., 843 So.2d 571 (La. Ct. App. 2003) (constructive proof under Louisiana design/construction standards)
- Lawrence v. Gen. Motors Corp., 73 F.3d 587 (5th Cir. 1996) (design defect burden under LPLA analogous framework)