Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DAMAGES—AIRCRAFT AND WATERCRAFT—Minn. App.: Fuel pump maker fails to persuade court that retrial of damages issue needed, (Feb 12, 2020)

By Pamela C. Maloney, J.D.

Retrial of strict liability claims arising out of an allegedly defective aircraft fuel pump were limited to liability issues despite the manufacturer’s claim that attorney misconduct affected damage award.

The manufacturer of an allegedly defective fuel pump in a small plane that crashed was not entitled to a new trial on damages, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled, upholding a trial court’s determination that misconduct by the injured pilot’s attorney only affected the jury’s determination on liability issues (Kedrowski v. Lycoming Engines, February 10, 2020, Hooten, C.).

In September 2010, the pilot of a single-engine aircraft sustained life-changing injuries when the aircraft he was flying crashed shortly after take-off from the Lake Elmo Airport. The pilot filed a products liability lawsuit against Lycoming Engines, alleging that engine’s fuel pump had been defectively designed and manufactured. A jury found in favor of the pilot on the manufacturing defect and negligence claims only, entering a verdict in the amount of $27.7 million.

The trial court granted Lycoming’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on the ground that testimony by the pilot’s sole causation expert lacked foundation. However, the trial court denied Lycoming’s JMOL motion with respect to damages, finding that misconduct by the pilot’s attorney related entirely to the issue of liability. The trial court’s decision was upheld by the appellate court but was reversed on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

According to the state high court, the trial court’s decision to exclude the entirety of the expert’s causation testimony was overbroad because that testimony had several reliable bases that were independent of the unreliable fuel pump performance test (see Products Liability Daily’s September 12, 2019 analysis). Explaining that the unreliable fuel pump test related only to the issue of liability, which was "distinct and separable" from the issues of damages, the Minnesota Supreme Court granted a new trial on the issue of liability. The question of whether a new trial concerning damages was warranted on the ground of attorney misconduct was remanded to the appellate court.

Attorney misconduct. Lycoming had argued that the jury’s monetary award reflected juror prejudice incited by the misconduct of counsel, thereby warranting a new trial on the issue of damages as well as liability. According to the manufacturer, Minnesota procedural rules require that if the trial court finds prejudicial misconduct with respect to liability, it must grant a new trial on both liability and damages, regardless of whether the award was excessive.

Lycoming was correct in arguing that, had the district court granted a new trial on damages due to attorney misconduct, it would not have needed to address the company’s separate arguments that the verdict was excessive. However, in this case, the trial court granted a new trial on the issue of liability alone. A review of Minnesota case law revealed that in cases involving prejudicial misconduct, a new trial on liability did not require a new trial on damages as a matter of law, if the issues were so distinct and separable that one issue could be justly determined without a determination as to the other issue.

Despite the manufacturer’s arguments to the contrary, there was no evidence in this case that the liability and damages issues were not distinct and separable. The trial court found that the misconduct had been related almost entirely to liability issues and Lycoming offered no direct link between the misconduct and the damages award. Furthermore, the company had not argued on appeal that the overall award was excessive or not justified by the record. Instead, there was overwhelming evidence regarding the pilot’s catastrophic injuries to support the jury’s award of damages.

Observing that the trial court judge was in the best position to determine whether an attorney’s misconduct had prejudiced the jury and acknowledging that the record in this case supported the trial court reasons having found that any misconduct with respect to liability did not prejudice the jury with respect to damages, the appellate court concluded that there was no error in denying Lycoming’s motion for a new trial on damages. Thus, the case was remanded for a new trial on the issue of liability alone.

The case is No. A17-0538.

Attorneys: Eric J. Magnuson (Robins Kaplan LLP) for Mark Kedrowski; Steven J. Wells (Dorsey & Whitney LLP) for Lycoming Engines.

Companies: Lycoming Engines

Cases: CourtDecisions DamagesNews AircraftWatercraftNews MinnesotaNews