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

damagesliabilityappealtrialverdicttestimonymotionadmissibility

lawsuittortplaintiffnegligenceliabilitytrialverdicttestimonymotionwillregulationstrict liability

Related Cases

Graham by Graham v. Wyeth Laboratories, Div. of American Home Products Corp., 906 F.2d 1399, 59 USLW 2056, 31 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 132, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,488

Facts

Michelle Graham, a child, suffered severe and irreversible brain damage after receiving Wyeth's DTP vaccine at a few months old. Graham's parents alleged that the vaccine caused her condition, while Wyeth denied liability, arguing that Graham had suffered a stroke prior to vaccination. The trial included extensive expert testimony, but the jury ultimately found in favor of Graham, awarding her $15,000,000 in damages.

This lawsuit had its origins in the tragic history of the plaintiff, Michelle Graham, a child who has suffered, and is suffering from brain damage, and who requires continuous treatment and care.

Issue

The main legal issues included whether the trial court erred in excluding expert testimony, whether the vaccine was 'unavoidably unsafe,' and whether Wyeth was entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

The most significant of these are: (1) should judgment NOV have been granted to Wyeth? (2) Are state tort awards for the improper manufacture of vaccines preempted by federal regulation? (3) Does Kansas allow for tort awards based upon strict liability or the negligent manufacture of an 'inherently unsafe' vaccine?

Rule

The court applied the standard for granting a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (N.O.V.), which requires evidence upon which a jury could properly find a verdict for the non-moving party, and reviewed evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.

The standard for determining whether to grant a motion for a Judgment N.O.V., as for a directed verdict, is not whether there is literally no evidence to support the party opposing the motion, but whether there is evidence upon which the jury could properly find a verdict for that party.

Analysis

The Court of Appeals found that the trial court's exclusion of expert testimony regarding a pre-vaccination stroke was a significant error that deprived Wyeth of a crucial defense. The court emphasized that the jury should have been allowed to consider all relevant evidence, including the possibility that Graham's injury was caused by a stroke rather than the vaccine. The court also noted that the trial court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence were overly restrictive and affected Wyeth's ability to present its case.

In our view, one of the most serious evidentiary errors committed at the trial was the exclusion of critical portions of Dr. Cibis' testimony.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the evidentiary errors were significant enough to warrant a new trial.

We will affirm the denial of judgment NOV, reverse the denial of the motion for a new trial, and remand to the district court for a new trial on all issues.

Who won?

Wyeth Laboratories prevailed in the appeal, as the Court of Appeals found that the trial court had made significant evidentiary errors that warranted a new trial.

Wyeth claimed that Graham's design defect theory was barred as a matter of law, and was unsupported by the evidence; that Graham's claims of inadequate warning based upon negligence were legally insufficient and not supported by evidence; and that Graham's claims were preempted by federal law.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password