Kay V. Cessna Aircraft Company, 548 F.2d 1370(1977)
Julius Kay, the Plaintiff’s deceased husband, had been killed after his Cessna airplane crashed as he took-off. One of the engines had failed resulting to the crush.
The Plaintiff sued the manufacturer of the plane, the defendants, under the strict products liability doctrine. The defendant argued that the instructions were adequate and had the deceased followed them, the accident would not have occurred.
The jury found the defendant liable for the accident upon which they made a motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict. The trial court granted the motion. The plaintiff later made a motion to set aside the judgment on the basis of discovery of new evidence. The motion was denied and they made the appeal.
Issues
Whether the judgment not withstanding verdict was properly made
Whether the new evidence warranted the setting aside of the judgment
Holding
The judgment was rightly entered and the new evidence did not add any new facts to the plaintiff’s case. The court affirmed the decision of the trial court.
Reasoning
A judgment not withstanding a jury verdict may be entered where evidence on record supports it (Cockrum v. Whitney). The trial judge does not re-evaluate the evidence or mull over the trustworthiness of the witnesses; all they have to do is consider whether the evidence presented supports the judgment. the plaintiff’s case being premised on the strict products liability theory had to prove that the airplane lacked the necessary instructions or warnings on its correct and secure use as to render it defective (Barth v. B. F. Goodrich Tire Co).
The court opined that the plaintiff had not proved the inadequacy of the instructions. The defendant in fact led evidence showing that had the deceased followed the instructions provided, the accident could not have occurred. The evidence on record thus supported the judgment. The new evidence did not add any facts to the plaintiff’s case thus it could not affect the decision to make the judgment. Accordingly, the decisions of the trial court were affirmed.
Works cited
Barth v. B. F. Goodrich Tire Co., 265 Cal.App.2d 228, 71 Cal.Rptr. 306 (1968)
Cockrum v. Whitney, 479 F.2d 84 (9th Cir. 1973)
