Sierra Ex Rel. L.O.B. v. Dorel Juvenile Group, 663 F. App'x 307

Sierra sued Dorel after an extension ladder collapsed, alleging a manufacturing defect in the ladder’s rail-locks caused the collapse and his injuries.
Experts for both sides agreed the rail-locks were damaged and that the damage required unusual torque and heat; they disagreed whether the damage occurred during manufacture or after assembly.
Sierra’s expert testified the type of post-assembly damage would generate substantial plastic shavings inside the ladder rung, but few shavings were found; Sierra argued this showed the damage occurred before assembly (i.e., a manufacturing defect).
Dorel presented testimony from a former product-development director and an engineering expert describing manufacturing quality controls and asserting the manufacturing process could not have produced this damage; Dorel’s expert also replicated the damage on a fully assembled ladder.
The jury returned a verdict for Dorel; the district court denied Sierra’s Rule 59 motion for a new trial, and Sierra appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a new trial under Rule 59 on evidentiary grounds	Sierra: near absence of plastic shavings proves damage occurred before assembly, so there is no evidence supporting a verdict for Dorel	Dorel: record contains evidence (manufacturing controls, experts, successful post-assembly replication) supporting the jury’s verdict	Affirmed — denial of Rule 59 motion was not an abuse of discretion because some evidence supports the verdict
Whether the case should be remanded for the district court to decide a post-trial Show Cause order concerning juror contact	Sierra: (not argued on appeal); Dorel requested remand so district court could address the Show Cause order	Dorel: remand required for district court to resolve Show Cause matter	No remand; the Show Cause order concerns post-trial conduct not involved in the appeal, and the district court retained jurisdiction to decide it

Whitehead v. Food Max of Miss., 163 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 1998) (standard: new trial not warranted unless verdict is against the great weight of the evidence)
Pryor v. Trane Co., 138 F.3d 1024 (5th Cir. 1998) (discusses great-weight-of-the-evidence standard)
Hidden Oaks Ltd. v. City of Austin, 138 F.3d 1036 (5th Cir. 1998) (requires a clear showing of an absolute absence of evidence to overturn denial of new trial)
Bank One, Tex., N.A. v. Taylor, 970 F.2d 16 (5th Cir. 1992) (appellate review limited; reversal only where absolute absence of evidence supports verdict)
Seidman v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 923 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1991) (same principle on appellate review of new-trial denials)
Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982) (appeal confers jurisdiction on appellate court and divests district court of aspects involved in the appeal)
Weingarten Realty Inv’rs v. Miller, 661 F.3d 904 (5th Cir. 2011) (district court may adjudicate matters not involved in the appeal)