Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

plaintifftrialverdictmotionexpert witness
plaintiffdefendantappealtrialverdictmotionappellantappelleeadmissibility

Related Cases

Innes v. Marzano-Lesnevich, 435 N.J.Super. 198, 87 A.3d 775
View Case »
Fausek v. White, 965 F.2d 126, 35 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1225
View Case »
People ex rel. Deukmejian v. Brown, 29 Cal.3d 150, 624 P.2d 1206, 172 Cal.Rptr. 478
View Case »
Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court For Southern Dist. of Iowa, 488 U.S. 815, 109 S.Ct. 51 (Mem), 102 L.Ed.2d 30
View Case »
Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134, 132 S.Ct. 1399, 182 L.Ed.2d 379, 80 USLW 4253, 12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3308, 2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3718, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 198
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Joint Eastern & Southern Dist. Asbestos Litigation, 52 F.3d 1124, 63 USLW 2644, 25 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,828, 41 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 904, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 14,210

Facts

John Maiorana died of colon cancer in 1983, and his widow, Arlene M. Maiorana, claimed that his illness was caused by exposure to Cafco D, an asbestos spray used at construction sites where he worked. The scientific community was divided on the link between asbestos exposure and colon cancer. At trial, both parties presented expert witnesses and epidemiological studies, leading to a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff. However, the district court later granted USMP's motion for judgment as a matter of law, setting aside the jury's decision.

In 1983, John Maiorana ('Maiorana') died of colon cancer. His widow, plaintiff/appellant Arlene M. Maiorana ('plaintiff'), claimed that her husband's illness was caused by exposure to Cafco D, an asbestos spray manufactured by defendant-appellee United States Mineral Products Co. ('USMP').

Issue

Did the district court err in granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of USMP by improperly weighing scientific evidence and failing to recognize sufficient evidence for a jury question regarding causation?

The central issue in this appeal is whether a district judge's expanded role in assessing the admissibility of scientific evidence in federal trials, as articulated by the Supreme Court in Daubert, extends to consideration of the sufficiency of scientific evidence already admitted.

Rule

The court applied the standard that a district court should not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law unless there is a complete absence of evidence supporting the verdict, and it must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.

It is well established that a district court should not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law except on a showing of 'such a complete absence of evidence supporting the verdict that the jury's findings could only have been the result of sheer surmise and conjecture.'

Analysis

The appellate court found that the district court overstepped its role by weighing the scientific evidence and substituting its judgment for that of the jury. The court emphasized that the jury could reasonably rely on the epidemiological studies and expert testimonies presented by the plaintiff, which suggested a causal link between asbestos exposure and colon cancer. The appellate court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to create jury questions.

The appellate court found that the district court overstepped its role by weighing the scientific evidence and substituting its judgment for that of the jury. The court emphasized that the jury could reasonably rely on the epidemiological studies and expert testimonies presented by the plaintiff, which suggested a causal link between asbestos exposure and colon cancer.

Conclusion

The appellate court reversed the district court's judgment as a matter of law in favor of USMP, reinstated the jury's verdict, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Therefore, we reverse the order entering judgment as a matter of law for USMP, and we direct the reinstatement of the jury verdict in favor of plaintiff.

Who won?

The plaintiff, Arlene M. Maiorana, prevailed because the appellate court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's verdict, which the district court had improperly set aside.

The plaintiff, Arlene M. Maiorana, prevailed because the appellate court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's verdict, which the district court had improperly set aside.

You must be