Lavoie v. Pacific Press & Shear Co.

Citation. 975 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1992)

Powered by

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Citation975 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1992)

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff sued Defendant for strict liability, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and negligence. The Defendant never objected to these four theories of liability before or during the jury trial.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A party waives its right to object to a jury instruction when it does not raise the objection until appeal.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

Under Rule 49(b), the jury after being fully instructed answers the interrogatories, renders a general verdict and the trial court enters judgment on the jury's verdict.

View Full Point of Law

Lavoie (Plaintiff), an industrial worker, sued Pacific Press & Shear, Co. (Defendant) for strict liability, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and negligence after she was injured while using their product. The Defendant never objected to these four theories of liability before or during the jury trial.

Issue.

Did the Defendant waive its right to object to the jury instructions, as inconsistent theories of liability, by not raising the objection until the jury verdict was appealed?

Held.

Yes, the Defendant waived its right to object to the jury instruction. Affirmed.

Discussion.

The Court determined that the Defendant had an opportunity and an obligation to raise its concerns with the jury instruction regarding the four theories of liability before the case was appealed. The jury instructions were discussed at length by the parties before and after the jury verdict without objection. The Court further determined that the jury instructions called for a general verdict under Rule 49(b), not a special verdict under Rule 49(a), and the alleged inconsistencies between the general verdict and the answers to specific questions regarding the different theories of liability did not require a new trial under Rule 49(b).