Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantdamagesliabilityappealtrialverdict

plaintiffdamagesliabilityappealtrialverdictcorporation

Related Cases

Draper v. Airco, Inc., 580 F.2d 91

Facts

On September 23, 1970, Robert Draper, an electrician, died from electrocution while installing a switch on an energized line at a U.S. Steel facility. Draper's wife filed a wrongful death and survival action against U.S. Steel, Airco, Inc., and W. V. Pangborne & Co. The project involved constructing an oxygen plant, and the switch was to be installed while the line was energized, leading to differing accounts of how that decision was made. The jury found all three defendants negligent, resulting in a damages award that was later challenged due to improper closing arguments by the plaintiff's counsel.

On September 23, 1970, Robert Draper, an electrician, died apparently from electrocution while installing a switch on an energized line on the premises of the United States Steel Corporation.

Issue

Did the district court err in refusing to grant a new trial due to prejudicial remarks made by the plaintiff's counsel during closing arguments?

The central issue on this appeal is whether the district court erred in refusing to grant a new trial because of prejudicial remarks made by plaintiff's counsel in his closing argument to the jury in the liability phase of the trial.

Rule

The court held that improper remarks by counsel that appeal to juror prejudices can warrant a new trial, especially when they exceed the bounds of proper argument and may influence the jury's verdict.

We are forced to conclude that the district court did err and that a new trial must be granted.

Analysis

The Court of Appeals determined that the closing arguments made by the plaintiff's counsel were so prejudicial that they likely influenced the jury's verdict. The remarks included inappropriate references to the defendants' wealth and personal opinions about the case, which were not based on evidence. The cumulative effect of these remarks was deemed sufficient to overturn the jury's verdict and necessitate a new trial.

The remarks of counsel here, however, so far exceed the bounds of proper argument that we are bound to reverse the district court.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial on both liability and damages due to the prejudicial nature of the closing arguments.

A jury which is prejudiced with respect to its finding of liability is not likely to be free from prejudice in awarding damages.

Who won?

The plaintiff, Draper's widow, prevailed in the initial trial but the appellate court's decision for a new trial means the outcome is not final.

The jury verdict for $585,789.55 must be overturned, and a new trial granted on both liability and damages.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Maddox v. Muirhead, 738 So.2d 742

Scheckel v. NLI, Inc., 953 N.E.2d 133

Four Seasons Lakesites, Inc. v. HRS Properties, Inc., 317 S.W.3d 193

Wheelock v. Noonan, 63 Sickels 179, 108 N.Y. 179, 15 N.E. 67

KCM Financial LLC v. Bradshaw, 457 S.W.3d 70, 180 Oil & Gas Rep. 1019, 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 437