Robyn Christiansen v. Wright Medical Technology Inc.

Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 1 of 31
[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-12162
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 1:12-md-02329-WSD,
1:13-cv-00297-WSD
ROBYN CHRISTIANSEN,
GENE CHRISTIANSEN,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
versus
WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(March 20, 2017)
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 2 of 31
Before WILSON and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and BARTLE∗, District Judge.
BARTLE, District Judge:
Defendant Wright Medical Technology, Inc. appeals from the entry against
it of a $2,100,000 judgment in this products liability case following a jury verdict
in favor of plaintiff Robyn Christiansen 1 and after the district court’s denial in part
of the defendant’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. 2
The trial in this case was the first bellwether trial in a multidistrict litigation
involving over 500 cases concerning the Wright Medical Conserve
“metal-on-metal” hip replacement device designed and manufactured by the
defendant. At trial, Christiansen alleged that Wright Medical was liable for design
defect based on strict liability and negligence. She also brought claims of
fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent
concealment related to the hip replacement device. She asserted that metal debris
from the hip replacement device had caused her physical impairment and severe
pain. There was no dispute that Christiansen received the hip replacement device
in Utah and that Utah law applied.
∗
Honorable Harvey Bartle III, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
1. Before trial, Gene Christiansen abandoned his loss of consortium claim. That claim is not at
issue in this appeal.
2. The district court granted in part the motion of Wright Medical to the extent that it sought a
reduction in punitive damages from $10,000,000 to $1,100,000. The motion was otherwise
denied.
2
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 3 of 31
Wright Medical now contends that the district court erred in ordering the
jury to continue deliberations after the jury had already begun to deliver its verdict.
Wright Medical also argues that the district court erred in its instructions on Utah’s
products liability law with regard to the unavoidably unsafe product defense in
Comment k of Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.
I.
The trial in this matter began on November 9, 2015, and jury deliberations
commenced on November 19, 2015. On the second day of deliberations, the jury
notified the district court that it had reached a unanimous verdict. The district
judge reviewed the verdict sheet in the presence of the jury, and, at his instruction,
the deputy clerk then began to read the verdict. The first question, denominated as
Question 1A, stated:
Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that Wright
Medical’s hip replacement device was defectively designed?
The jury answered “No.” The instruction on the verdict sheet immediately below
the jury’s answer read:
If you answered NO to Question 1A, stop, and sign and date this
form. If you answered YES to Question 1A, proceed to Question
1B.
(Bolded text in original). Even though it had answered “No,” the jury did not stop
there. It made nine other findings on the verdict sheet, awarded compensatory and
3
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 4 of 31
punitive damages, and apportioned liability between the parties. 3 It found that
Wright Medical was liable for negligent misrepresentation and awarded $662,500.
3. In full, the verdict sheet included the following questions and answers. Page one read:
Design Defect
1A. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that Wright Medical’s hip
replacement device was defectively designed?
[No.]
If you answered NO to Question 1A, stop, and sign and date this form. If you
answered YES to Question 1A, proceed to Question 1B.
1B. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the hip replacement
device was unreasonably dangerous?
[No response indicated.]
If you answered NO to Question 1B, stop, and sign and date this form. If you
answered YES to Question 1B, proceed to Question 1C.
Although the questions continued onto the following page, the foreperson signed and dated the
bottom of the first page.
Page two of the verdict sheet, contained the following questions and answers:
1C. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that when Wright Medical
made the hip replacement device, it could not be made safe for its intended use
even applying the best available testing and research, and that the benefit of the
hip replacement device justified its risk?
[No response indicated.]
Proceed to Question 1D.
1D. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the design defect was
present at the time Wright Medical sold the hip replacement device that was
implanted in Plaintiff?
[No.]
4
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 5 of 31
If you answered NO to Question 1D, stop, and sign and date this form. If you
answered YES to Question 1D, proceed to Question 1E.
1E. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the design defect was a
cause of harm to Plaintiff?
[No response indicated.]
If you answered NO to Question 1E, stop, and sign and date this form. If you
answered YES to Question 1E, proceed to Question 1F.
1F. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiff is entitled to
recover compensatory damages?
[No response indicated.]
If your answer is “Yes,” what amount? [No response indicated.]
Proceed to Question 2A.
Again, although the questions continued onto the next page, the foreperson signed and dated the
bottom of the second page.
The verdict sheet continued:
Fraudulent Misrepresentation
2A. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that Wright Medical made
fraudulent misrepresentations about the hip replacement device implanted in
Plaintiff?
[No.]
If you answered NO to Question 2A, proceed to Question 3A. If you
answered YES to Question 2A, proceed to Question 2B.
2B. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that Wright Medical’s
fraudulent misrepresentations about the hip replacement device implanted in
Plaintiff was a cause of harm to Plaintiff?
[No response indicated.]
If you answered NO to Question 2B, proceed to Question 3A. If you
answered YES to Question 2B, proceed to Question 2C.
5
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 6 of 31
2C. Do you award damages in addition to any amount awarded in response to
Question 1F?
[No response indicated].
If your answer is “Yes,” in what additional amount? [No response indicated.]
Proceed to Question 3A.
Negligent Misrepresentation
3A. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that Wright Medical made
negligent misrepresentations as to the hip replacement device implanted in
Plaintiff?
[Yes.]
If you answered NO to Question 3A, proceed to Question 4A. If you
answered YES to Question 3A, proceed to Question 3B.
3B. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that Wright Medical’s
negligent misrepresentations as to the hip replacement device implanted in
Plaintiff was a cause of harm to Plaintiff?
[Yes.]
If you answered NO to Question 3B, proceed to Question 4A. If you
answered YES to Question 3B, proceed to Question 3C.
3C. Do you award damages in addition to any amount awarded in response to
Question 1F, and any additional amount you may have awarded in Question 2C?
[Yes.]
If your answer is “Yes,” in what additional amount? [$662,500]
Proceed to Question 4A.
Fraudulent Concealment
4A. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that Wright Medical
fraudulently concealed or failed to disclose an important fact or facts to Plaintiff
or Dr. Rasmussen about the hip replacement device implanted in Plaintiff?
6
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 7 of 31
[No.]
If you answered NO to Question 4A, proceed to Question 5A. If you
answered YES to Question 4A, proceed to Question 4B.
4B. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that Wright Medical’s
fraudulent concealment or failure to disclose an important fact or facts to Plaintiff
or Dr. Ramsussen [sic] about the hip replacement device implanted in Plaintiff
was a cause of harm to Plaintiff?
[No response indicated.]
If you answered NO to Question 4B, proceed to Question 5A. If you
answered YES to Question 4B, proceed to Question 4C.
4C. If your answer is “Yes,” do you award damages in addition to any amount
awarded in response to Question 1F, and any additional amount you may have
awarded in Questions 2C and 3C?
[No response indicated.]
If your answer is “Yes,” in what additional amount? [No response indicated.]
Proceed to Question 5A.
Punitive Damages
5A. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that Wright Medical’s
conduct: (i) was willful and malicious; (ii) was intentionally fraudulent; or
(iii) manifested a knowing and reckless indifference towards, and a disregard of,
the rights of others, including Ms. Christiansen for any of the below conduct?
[check all that apply]
In making misrepresentations as to the hip replacement device? [Checked.]
In fraudulently concealing information as to the hip replacement device? [Not
checked.]
If you checked either of the above, what, if any, amount of punitive damages, in
addition to any other damages you may have awarded, do you award against
Wright Medical?
7
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 8 of 31
It also found that, in making those misrepresentations, the defendant’s conduct was
[$2,500,000]
Proceed to Question 6A.
Comparative Fault
6A. Was Plaintiff also at fault in causing Plaintiff’s harm?
[Yes.]
If you answered NO to Question 6A, stop, and sign and date this form. If you
answered YES to Question 6A, please state below what percentage each of
the below parties is responsible for Plaintiff’s harm.
Wright Medical: [78.70%]
Plaintiff: [21.24%]
Although there was still one page remaining in the verdict sheet, the foreperson signed and dated
the bottom of this page.
The final page of the verdict sheet read:
Special Factual Findings
The Court requests that you make special factual findings regarding your answer
in response to Question 1C. If you answered “No” to Question 1C, please
indicate below which facts Wright Medical failed to prove by a preponderance of
the evidence.
[check all that apply]
When the hip replacement device was made, it could not be made safe for its
intended use even applying the best available testing and research. [Not checked.]
The benefit of the hip replacement device justified its risk. [Not checked.]
The hip replacement device, properly manufactured, was accompanied by proper
directions and warnings. [Checked.]
(Bolded text in original). The bottom of the verdict sheet was signed and dated by the foreperson
in the space designated for signature.
8
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 9 of 31
“willful and malicious,” “intentionally fraudulent,” or “manifested a knowing and
reckless indifference towards, and a disregard of, the rights of others, including
Ms. Christiansen.” It awarded $2,500,000 in punitive damages. With respect to
the question on the verdict sheet about comparative fault, it found Wright Medical
78.7% at fault and Christiansen 21.24% at fault.4
Before the deputy clerk could proceed beyond the answer to Question 1A,
the district court realized that the jury’s responses on the verdict sheet were
inconsistent and halted the further reading of the verdict sheet. The court
instructed the jury to “take the form back into the jury room, and please carefully
read the instructions that are given to you after—beginning on page one and
reevaluate whether you have properly filled out the form.”
After the jury had returned to the jury room, the court told counsel that the
jury’s responses had not conformed to the court’s instructions:
We all agreed on the jury form and we all agreed on the
instructions and we all agreed at the charge conference
that certain findings precluded further findings, and I
need to make sure that they understand that. And then I
need to make sure that, having understood that, that they
complete the form in accordance with the instructions,
and I’m going to have them complete the form again.
But I think they need that—they need to be told that the
instructions which have been agreed upon by counsel for
both parties are essential to their findings. So that’s what
I intend to do.
4. The jury’s findings with regard to comparative fault do not total 100%.
9
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 10 of 31
Thereafter, the court had the jury return to the courtroom. It explained to the
jury:
Ladies and gentlemen, I want to tell you something and then ask you
to go back into the jury room and do whatever you think in your
considered judgment is necessary for you to reach your verdict,
including after what I say, if you think you need to deliberate more, I
want you to do that.
But let me explain this jury form. The jury form was created to walk
you through findings that you are required to make and findings that
you are not supposed to make if you make certain other findings, and
that’s why all the instructions are in there.
And so when it says—and you have to follow the instructions
specifically because they are an essential part of the verdict form and
the way that you are supposed to reach your verdict. And from what
my reading was that you—is that you needed to—I needed to make
sure that you went back, and I want you to go back again, and make
sure you fully understand the instructions.
The court suggested that the jury reread the verdict sheet out loud to ensure that all
members of the jury understood the instructions. It explained that “what
everybody wants here is to make sure that we have given you the proper
instructions and tools to reach a verdict, which is what everybody wants.”
Wright Medical moved to have the court accept the jury’s finding in answer
to Question 1A that there was no design defect and enter judgment in its favor and
against the plaintiff. The court denied the motion. It concluded “that the jury, in
my considered legal and practical opinion, they did not understand the instructions
in the form.”
10
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 11 of 31
The jury was directed to resume deliberations. Minutes later, it informed the
court that it did not understand the verdict sheet and sought further explanation.
The court acknowledged that the verdict sheet was not “drafted in a way that, in
your first working with it, that you fully understood it.” With the consent of
counsel, the court revised the verdict sheet instructions to clarify that the jury
should not complete the remainder of the sheet if it answered “No” to Question 1A.
The instruction now stated:
If you answered NO to Question 1A, stop. Do not complete the
remainder of the form. The foreperson should sign and date the
form and tell the Court Security Officer you have a verdict. If
you answered YES to Question 1A, proceed to Question 1B.
(Bolded text in original).
The following explanatory note was attached to the revised verdict sheet and
delivered to the jury:
Ladies and Gentleman:
In response to your comment that you do not understand the verdict
form, I have revised the form by adding clarifying language in certain
of the instructions. The instructions where clarifying language was
added are identified with an asterisk.
If this language does not answer your questions about how to
complete the form, please tell the Court Security Officer so I can
respond before you continue your deliberations.
Finally, if in following the instructions you were required to answer
Question 1C, please make the Special Factual Findings on page 7. If
you ended up not answering Question 1C, do not make the Special
Factual Findings on page 7.
11
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 12 of 31
The court also recharged the jury, which thereafter resumed deliberations.
After approximately one half day of deliberations, the jury informed the
court that it was unable to reach a verdict. The court advised it to continue
deliberations. The following day, one of the jurors submitted a note to the court in
which the juror reported that deliberations were taking an “extensively long time as
one of the jurors doesn’t look at the evidence through the perspective of the law.”
A few hours later, the foreperson sent a note which stated: “We are unable to
provide a verdict and complete the verdict form. We have one juror that has
decided no longer to participate in the jury and the process to reach a unanimous
verdict.”
In the presence of counsel, the court interviewed the juror who had been
accused of refusing to deliberate. 5 After the juror had left the room, counsel and
the court discussed his testimony, and the court reviewed the transcript. At the
request of counsel, the court asked the juror to return to the room to answer
additional clarifying questions:
THE COURT: I went back and read the question I asked you, and I
didn’t do a very good job of that. So I’m going to try again. Let me
just be a little bit more careful. Let’s go back to the jury form. You
obviously read the jury form?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
5. The court also interviewed the foreperson and the juror who had submitted the first note.
12
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 13 of 31
THE COURT: And the jury form basically has some questions, and
the jury is supposed to answer yes or no to those questions. And you
have seen those questions that are required to be answered yes or no?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And then after most of the questions, there is an
instruction in bold. You have seen those, haven't you?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And what it does is it looks at the answer to the
question right above the instruction, and it will say if you answered
yes, then it instructs you to do specific things. If you answer the
question no, it tells you to do something different.
JUROR: Exactly.
THE COURT: So I don’t want to focus on any specific question, but
has there been during your deliberations a question where you have
voted with the others on how to answer the question—have there been
times when you agreed with the answer to the question? Has that
happened?
JUROR: Yes, it has.
THE COURT: And then when you go down and look at the
instruction, is the answer to that question an instruction that you
disagree with and that you haven’t been able to follow?
JUROR: Haven’t been able to follow? In some instance, yes.
THE COURT: And is that because you disagree that the instruction
would lead to a result that you think should happen?
JUROR: My answer is different from what some of the others had,
yes.
THE COURT: And when you say your answer—you answered
differently, there are others that say here is what the instruction says,
13
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 14 of 31
this is what we have to do, is it your position is I know that’s what the
instruction says, but I can’t agree with it because I think that would
lead to the wrong result?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
The court determined that the juror was unwilling to follow the instructions on the
verdict sheet. The juror was dismissed without objection from either party.
The seven remaining members of the jury then returned to the jury room.
Thirty minutes later, the jury notified the court that it had reached a verdict. 6 In
6. In full, the verdict sheet stated the following:
Design Defect
1A. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that Wright Medical’s hip
replacement device was defectively designed?
[Yes.]
*If you answered NO to Question 1A, stop. Do not complete the remainder
of the form. The foreperson should sign and date the form and tell the Court
Security Officer you have a verdict. If you answered YES to Question 1A,
proceed to Question 1B.
1B. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the hip replacement
device was unreasonably dangerous?
[Yes.]
*If you answered NO to Question 1B, stop. Do not complete the remainder
of the form. The foreperson should sign and date the form and tell the Court
Security Officer you have a verdict. If you answered YES to Question 1B,
proceed to Question 1C.
1C. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that when Wright Medical
made the hip replacement device, it could not be made safe for its intended use
even applying the best available testing and research, and that the benefit of the
hip replacement device justified its risk?
14
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 15 of 31
[No.]
Proceed to Question 1D.
1D. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the design defect was
present at the time Wright Medical sold the hip replacement device that was
implanted in Plaintiff?
[Yes.]
*If you answered NO to Question 1D, stop. Do not complete the remainder
of the form. The foreperson should sign and date the form and tell the Court
Security Officer you have a verdict. If you answered YES to Question 1D,
proceed to Question 1E.
1E. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the design defect was a
cause of harm to Plaintiff?
[Yes.]
*If you answered NO to Question 1E, stop. Do not complete the remainder
of the form. The foreperson should sign and date the form and tell the Court
Security Officer you have a verdict. If you answered YES to Question 1E,
proceed to Question 1F.
1F. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiff is entitled to
recover compensatory damages?
[Yes.]
If your answer is “Yes,” what amount? [$550,000]
The foreperson signed her initials next to the damages award. The verdict sheet continued:
Proceed to Question 2A.
Fraudulent Misrepresentation
2A. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that Wright Medical made
fraudulent misrepresentations about the hip replacement device implanted in
Plaintiff?
[No.]
15
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 16 of 31
If you answered NO to Question 2A, proceed to Question 3A. If you
answered YES to Question 2A, proceed to Question 2B.
2B. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that Wright Medical’s
fraudulent misrepresentations about the hip replacement device implanted in
Plaintiff was a cause of harm to Plaintiff?
[No response indicated.]
If you answered NO to Question 2B, proceed to Question 3A. If you
answered YES to Question 2B, proceed to Question 2C.
2C. Do you award damages in addition to any amount awarded in response to
Question 1F?
[No response indicated].
If your answer is “Yes,” in what additional amount? [No response indicated.]
Proceed to Question 3A.
Negligent Misrepresentation
3A. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that Wright Medical made
negligent misrepresentations as to the hip replacement device implanted in
Plaintiff?
[Yes.]
If you answered NO to Question 3A, proceed to Question 4A. If you
answered YES to Question 3A, proceed to Question 3B.
3B. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that Wright Medical’s
negligent misrepresentations as to the hip replacement device implanted in
Plaintiff was a cause of harm to Plaintiff?
[Yes.]
If you answered NO to Question 3B, proceed to Question 4A. If you
answered YES to Question 3B, proceed to Question 3C.
3C. Do you award damages in addition to any amount awarded in response to
Question 1F, and any additional amount you may have awarded in Question 2C?
16
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 17 of 31
[Yes.]
If your answer is “Yes,” in what additional amount? [$450,000]
Proceed to Question 4A.
Fraudulent Concealment
4A. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that Wright Medical
fraudulently concealed or failed to disclose an important fact or facts to Plaintiff
or Dr. Rasmussen about the hip replacement device implanted in Plaintiff?
[No.]
If you answered NO to Question 4A, proceed to Question 5A. If you
answered YES to Question 4A, proceed to Question 4B.
4B. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that Wright Medical’s
fraudulent concealment or failure to disclose an important fact or facts to Plaintiff
or Dr. Ramsussen [sic] about the hip replacement device implanted in Plaintiff
was a cause of harm to Plaintiff?
[No response indicated.]
If you answered NO to Question 4B, proceed to Question 5A. If you
answered YES to Question 4B, proceed to Question 4C.
4C. If your answer is “Yes,” do you award damages in addition to any amount
awarded in response to Question 1F, and any additional amount you may have
awarded in Questions 2C and 3C?
[No response indicated.]
If your answer is “Yes,” in what additional amount? [No response indicated.]
Proceed to Question 5A.
Punitive Damages
5A. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that Wright Medical’s
conduct: (i) was willful and malicious; (ii) was intentionally fraudulent; or
(iii) manifested a knowing and reckless indifference towards, and a disregard of,
the rights of others, including Ms. Christiansen for any of the below conduct?
17
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 18 of 31
[check all that apply]
In making misrepresentations as to the hip replacement device? [Checked.]
In fraudulently concealing information as to the hip replacement device? [Not
checked.]
If you checked either of the above, what, if any, amount of punitive damages, in
addition to any other damages you may have awarded, do you award against
Wright Medical?
[$10,000,000]
Proceed to Question 6A.
Comparative Fault
6A. Was Plaintiff also at fault in causing Plaintiff’s harm?
[No.]
*If you answered NO to Question 6A, make the Special Factual Findings on
Page 7 if required. After doing so, sign and date this form because your
verdict is complete. If you answered YES to Question 6A, please state below
what percentage each of the below parties is responsible for Plaintiff’s harm.
After doing so, please make the Special Factual Findings on Page 7 if
required.
Wright Medical: [No response indicated.]
Plaintiff: [No response indicated.]
Special Factual Findings
The Court requests that you make special factual findings regarding your answer
in response to Question 1C. If you answered “No” to Question 1C, please
indicate below which facts Wright Medical failed to prove by a preponderance of
the evidence.
[check all that apply]
When the hip replacement device was made, it could not be made safe for its
intended use even applying the best available testing and research. [Not checked.]
18
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 19 of 31
contrast to its answer on the first verdict sheet, the jury found in response to
Question 1A that the hip replacement device was defectively designed and
unreasonably dangerous. It determined that the design defect was present at the
time that Wright Medical sold the device to the plaintiff and caused her harm. In
this regard, it awarded her $550,000 in damages. The jury also found that Wright
Medical had not met its burden to prove that the device could not be made safe for
its intended use, even applying the best available testing and research, and that the
benefit of the hip replacement device justified the risk. In response to “Special
Factual Findings” regarding this conclusion, the jury indicated that Wright Medical
had failed to prove that the hip replacement device, properly manufactured, was
accompanied by proper directions and warnings.
The jury further determined that Wright Medical had made a negligent
misrepresentation about the device and awarded $450,000 in additional damages.
It also found that, in making those misrepresentations, the defendant’s conduct was
“willful and malicious,” “intentionally fraudulent,” or “manifested a knowing and
reckless indifference towards, and a disregard of, the rights of others, including
The benefit of the hip replacement device justified its risk. [Not checked.]
The hip replacement device, properly manufactured, was accompanied by proper
directions and warnings. [Checked.]
(Bolded text in original). The bottom of the verdict sheet was signed and dated by the
foreperson in the space designated for signature.
19
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 20 of 31
Ms. Christiansen.” It awarded $10,000,000 in punitive damages. It decided that
Christiansen was not at fault to any degree.
After the verdict was announced in the courtroom, each member of the jury
was polled. The district court accepted the unanimous verdict. Judgment was
initially entered in the amount of $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and
$10,000,000 in punitive damages. Wright Medical filed a post-trial “renewed
motion for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, motion for new trial,
and to amend the judgment.” In disposing of that motion, the court reduced the
award of punitive damages to $1,100,000.
II.
Wright Medical first argues that the district court erred in failing to grant
judgment as a matter of law in its favor based on the jury’s finding on the original
verdict sheet in its answer to Question 1A that there was no design defect because
the jury was instructed to proceed no further in the event of a “no” answer. Wright
Medical contends that the district court was required to accept the jury’s finding
that there was no design defect and deem any further answers by the jury to
subsequent questions to be nullities rather than inconsistencies. In the alternative,
it asserts that the district court should have ordered a new trial.
We first consider the district court’s determination that the answers on the
original verdict sheet were inconsistent. Pursuant to Rule 49 of the Federal Rules
20
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 21 of 31
of Civil Procedure,7 the district court has authority to identify an inconsistency on
a general verdict sheet containing answers to special interrogatories and either
7. In full, Rule 49 provides:
(a) Special Verdict.
(1) In General. The court may require a jury to return only a special
verdict in the form of a special written finding on each issue of fact. The
court may do so by:
(A) submitting written questions susceptible of a categorical or
other brief answer;
(B) submitting written forms of the special findings that might
properly be made under the pleadings and evidence; or
(C) using any other method that the court considers appropriate.
(2) Instructions. The court must give the instructions and explanations
necessary to enable the jury to make its findings on each submitted issue.
(3) Issues Not Submitted. A party waives the right to a jury trial on any
issue of fact raised by the pleadings or evidence but not submitted to the
jury unless, before the jury retires, the party demands its submission to the
jury. If the party does not demand submission, the court may make a
finding on the issue. If the court makes no finding, it is considered to have
made a finding consistent with its judgment on the special verdict.
(b) General Verdict with Answers to Written Questions.
(1) In General. The court may submit to the jury forms for a general
verdict, together with written questions on one or more issues of fact that
the jury must decide. The court must give the instructions and
explanations necessary to enable the jury to render a general verdict and
answer the questions in writing, and must direct the jury to do both.
(2) Verdict and Answers Consistent. When the general verdict and the
answers are consistent, the court must approve, for entry under Rule 58, an
appropriate judgment on the verdict and answers.
(3) Answers Inconsistent with the Verdict. When the answers are
consistent with each other but one or more is inconsistent with the general
verdict, the court may:
21
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 22 of 31
enter judgment, order further deliberations, or order a new trial. 8 See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 49(b). “While the district court’s application of Rule 49(b) is reviewed only for
abuse of discretion, its threshold determination that the jury returned a general
verdict inconsistent with its answers to special interrogatories is a mixed question
of law and fact . . . subject to plenary review.” Wilbur v. Corr. Servs. Corp.,
393 F.3d 1192, 1199 (11th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). This Court recently
summarized the relevant legal principles in Reider v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc.,
(A) approve, for entry under Rule 58, an appropriate judgment
according to the answers, notwithstanding the general verdict;
(B) direct the jury to further consider its answers and verdict; or
(C) order a new trial.
(4) Answers Inconsistent with Each Other and the Verdict. When the
answers are inconsistent with each other and one or more is also
inconsistent with the general verdict, judgment must not be entered;
instead, the court must direct the jury to further consider its answers and
verdict, or must order a new trial.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 49.
8. Wright Medical contends that the jury delivered a special verdict, rather than a general verdict
with written answers to special interrogatories. “Categorizing a verdict as a general verdict, or as
a special verdict under Rule 49(a), or as a general verdict with special interrogatories under Rule
49(b) should be—but too often seems not—a simple matter.” Mason v. Ford Motor Co.,
307 F.3d 1271, 1274–75 (11th Cir. 2002). “With a special verdict, the jury’s sole function is to
determine the facts; the jury needs no instruction on the law because the court applies the law to
the facts as found by the jury.” Id. at 1274. In contrast, here, the district court delivered
“instructions to the jury on the law to be applied to the jury’s factual findings as well as the
requirement that the jury apply the law and render its verdict.” See id. at 1275. Moreover,
“[b]oth the court’s instructions and the verdict form required the jury to perform the most
essential function that marks a general verdict: to decide which party prevails.” See id. The
verdict sheet in this case contained a general verdict with written answers to special
interrogatories.
22
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 23 of 31
793 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2015). There, it explained that “[a] verdict is inconsistent
when there is ‘no rational, non-speculative way to reconcile . . . two essential jury
findings.’” See id. at 1259 (quoting Witt v. Norfe, Inc., 725 F.2d 1277, 1278
(11th Cir. 1984)). “To determine whether a conflict in the verdict can be
reconciled, a district court must ask whether the jury’s answers could reflect ‘a
logical and probable decision on the relevant issues . . . submitted.’” Id. (quoting
Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1489 (11th Cir. 1983)).
The jury’s findings on the original verdict sheet were inconsistent. At the
charge conference, the parties and the district court agreed that if the jury were to
find that the hip replacement device was not defectively designed, this finding
would preclude further findings and require a verdict in favor of Wright Medical.
In other words, Christiansen could prevail on her negligent misrepresentation claim
only if the jury first found that there was a design defect. Thus, the original verdict
sheet instructed the jurors that if they found that there was no design defect, they
were to “stop, and sign and date this form.” Nevertheless, the jury recorded on the
original verdict sheet both that there was no design defect and that Wright Medical
had made a negligent misrepresentation. These findings are inherently inconsistent
as there is “no rational, non-speculative way to reconcile” these findings. See id.
(quoting Witt, 725 F.2d at 1278).
23
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 24 of 31
We reject Wright Medical’s invitation to ignore this inconsistency on the
theory that the jury’s response to Question 1A is controlling and any additional
responses have no legal effect.9 It is apparent from these contradictory and
irreconcilable responses that the jury did not understand the instructions on the
original verdict sheet. If the jury had understood these instructions, it would not
have continued to answer additional questions before it. Yet, the jury continued to
respond to additional questions thereby rendering its finding in Question 1A
irreconcilably inconsistent with its additional answers.
Wright Medical further argues that even if the district court was correct in
not entering judgment in its favor, it erred in ordering further deliberations rather
than a new trial. In this regard, Wright Medical contends that because the district
court stopped publication of the jury verdict immediately after the jury had
announced that there was no design defect, the jurors were left with the impression
that the district court disapproved of its finding as to no design defect.
Where the jury’s responses cannot be reconciled, “the district court has the
discretion to direct the jury to further consider its answers and the verdict, or order
a new trial.” See Reider, 793 F.3d at 1259; Wilbur v. Correctional Servs. Corp.,
393 F.3d 1192, 1199 (11th Cir. 2004). “[I]f the jury returns two inconsistent
9. Wright Medical relies on a number of cases concerning inconsistent jury verdicts. See, e.g.,
Nimnicht v. Dick Evans, Inc., 477 F.2d 133, 135 (5th Cir. 1973); McVey v. Phillips Petroleum
Co., 288 F.2d 53, 59 (5th Cir. 1961). To the extent that those cases are not distinguishable from
this case, they are inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dietz v. Bouldin,
579 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1885 (2016).
24
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 25 of 31
verdicts, the trial court may resubmit the issue to them for clarification.” Univ.
Computing Co. v. Lykes-Youngstown Corp., 504 F.2d 518, 547 (5th Cir. 1974). 10
“It is often preferable for a district court to direct the jury to reconsider its verdict
in an attempt to eliminate the inconsistency in order to avoid a new trial.” Reider,
793 F.3d at 1259.
In Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1885 (2016), the United States
Supreme Court “h[eld] that a federal district court has the inherent power to
rescind a jury discharge order and recall a jury for further deliberations after
identifying an error in the jury’s verdict.” Id. at 1890. There, the jury had
“returned a legally impermissible verdict” but “[t]he trial judge did not realize the
error until shortly after he excused the jury.” Id. By the time that the district court
recognized the error in the verdict, it had already informed the jury that it was
“discharged,” the jury had already left the courtroom, and one of the jurors had left
the building to collect a hotel receipt. Id. at 1890–91. None of the jurors had
spoken to anyone about the case. In addition to holding that reassembling the jury
and ordering it to resume deliberations was permissible, the Supreme Court
declared that “[i]n the normal course, when a court recognizes an error in a verdict
10. The decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit as that court existed on
September 30, 1981 are binding precedent in the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. See
Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981).
25
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 26 of 31
before it discharges the jury, it has the express power to give the jury a curative
instruction and order them to continue deliberating.” Id. at 1892.
Here, upon recognizing the inconsistency in the jury verdict, the district
court, consistent with Dietz and Reider, immediately halted publication of the
verdict and instructed the jury that an error had been made. At that point, only the
finding as to the design defect claim had been announced. Wright Medical argues
that this stopping point in the publication of the jury’s findings biased further jury
deliberations. This contention lacks merit. From a review of the record, the
district court acted in a neutral and non-biased manner in acknowledging and
addressing the inconsistent verdict. Rather than bias the jury against finding that
there had been no design defect, the district court’s clarifying instruction
emphasized that such a finding was legally permissible. The district court also
recharged the jury. Any inconsistencies between the jury’s findings on the original
verdict sheet and the supplemental verdict sheet can be explained by the jury’s
failure to understand the verdict sheet instructions. Under these circumstances, it
was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to order the jury to continue
deliberating.11
11. Wright Medical also contends that the dismissal of a juror who refused to follow the
instructions of the court, taken alongside the resubmission of the case to the jury, biased
deliberations. We are not persuaded. Not only did Wright Medical fail to object to the dismissal
of this juror, but it has offered no persuasive reason why this dismissal tainted jury deliberations.
26
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 27 of 31
III.
We next turn to the challenge of Wright Medical to the charge of the district
court concerning the defense against strict liability under Utah law for unavoidably
unsafe products set forth in Comment k to Section 402A of the Restatement
(Second) of Torts. Comment k states:
Unavoidably unsafe products. There are some products which, in the
present state of human knowledge, are quite incapable of being made
safe for their intended and ordinary use. These are especially
common in the field of drugs. An outstanding example is the vaccine
for the Pasteur treatment of rabies, which not uncommonly leads to
very serious and damaging consequences when it is injected. Since
the disease itself invariably leads to a dreadful death, both the
marketing and use of the vaccine are fully justified, notwithstanding
the unavoidable high degree of risk which they involve. Such a
product, properly prepared, and accompanied by proper directions and
warning, is not defective, nor is it unreasonably dangerous. The same
is true of many other drugs, vaccines, and the like, many of which for
this very reason cannot legally be sold except to physicians, or under
the prescription of a physician. It is also true in particular of many
new or experimental drugs as to which, because of lack of time and
opportunity for sufficient medical experience, there can be no
assurance of safety, or perhaps even of purity of ingredients, but such
experience as there is justifies the marketing and use of the drug
notwithstanding a medically recognizable risk. The seller of such
products, again with the qualification that they are properly prepared
and marketed, and proper warning is given, where the situation calls
for it, is not to be held to strict liability for unfortunate consequences
attending their use, merely because he has undertaken to supply the
public with an apparently useful and desirable product, attended with
a known but apparently reasonable risk.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A cmt. k (Am. Law Inst. 1965).
27
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 28 of 31
The district court delivered the following instruction to the jury concerning
the unavoidably unsafe product defense:
Wright Medical has asserted in this case a defense that the hip
replacement device was unavoidably safe and thus was not defective.
To prove this defense, Wright Medical must prove by preponderance
of the evidence the following elements. First, that when the hip
replacement device was made, it could not be made safe for its
intended use even applying the best available testing and research.
Second, the benefit of the hip replacement device justified its risk.
And, third, the product, properly manufactured, was accompanied by
proper directions and warnings. If Wright Medical proves these
elements by a preponderance of the evidence, the hip replacement
device is not defective.
Wright Medical contends that the district court erred in instructing the jury
to apply a case-by-case analysis that takes into account whether the specific
product at issue was properly manufactured and accompanied by proper directions
and warnings. Instead, Wright Medical asserts that the district court should have
instructed the jury that the defense is a categorical bar to liability if the jury finds
that the device could not be made safe for its intended use and that the benefit
justified the risk. The availability of an affirmative defense is a question of law
reviewed de novo. See Peter Letterese & Assocs., Inc. v. World Inst. of
Scientology Enters., Int’l, 533 F.3d 1287, 1319–20 n.38 (11th Cir. 2008).
In Grundberg v. Upjohn Co., 813 P.2d 89 (Utah 1991), the Utah Supreme
Court rejected the case-by-case approach and adopted Comment k as a categorical
bar against strict liability with regard to a particular class of products, namely,
28
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 29 of 31
pharmaceutical drugs that have been approved by the United States Food and Drug
Administration. It “h[eld] that a drug approved by the United States Food and
Drug Administration (“FDA”), properly prepared, compounded, packaged, and
distributed, cannot as a matter of law be ‘defective’ in the absence of proof of
inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, or fraudulent information furnished by the
manufacturer in connection with FDA approval.” Id. at 90. In announcing this
rule, the Utah Supreme Court “acknowledge[d] that by characterizing all
FDA-approved prescription medications as ‘unavoidably unsafe,’ we are
expanding the literal interpretation of comment k.” Id. Nonetheless, it extended
this defense applicable to FDA-approved prescription drugs because “[i]n its role
as ‘both a health promoter . . . and . . . a public protector,’ the FDA employs a
comprehensive scheme of premarket screening and post-market surveillance to
ensure the safety and efficacy of all licensed medications.” See id. at 96 (quoting
New Drug and Antibiotic Regulations, 50 Fed. Reg. 7452 (Feb. 22, 1985)).
Wright Medical asserts that the Utah Supreme Court would extend the
categorical bar against strict liability to medical devices, such as its hip
replacement device. Because the Utah Supreme Court has not spoken on the issue,
we must predict how it would decide this case. See Molinos Valle Del Cibao,
C. por A. v. Lama, 633 F.3d 1330, 1348 (11th Cir. 2011); Guideone Elite Ins. Co.
v. Old Cutler Presbyterian Church, Inc., 420 F.3d 1317, 1326 (11th Cir. 2005). In
29
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 30 of 31
Grundberg, the Court adopted the categorical bar against strict liability for
pharmaceutical drugs on the premise that those products have satisfied the
requirements of a comprehensive FDA approval process:
A drug is designed to be effectively administered to specific
individuals for one or a number of indications. To determine whether
a drug’s benefit outweighs its risk is inherently complex because of
the manufacturer’s conscious design choices regarding the numerous
chemical properties of the product and their relationship to the vast
physiologic idiosyncracies of each consumer for whom the drug is
designed. Society has recognized this complexity and in response has
reposed regulatory authority in the FDA. Relying on the FDA’s
screening and surveillance standards enables courts to find liability
under circumstances of inadequate warning, mismanufacture,
improper marketing, or misinforming the FDA-avenues for which
courts are better suited. Although this approach denies plaintiffs one
potential theory on which to rely in a drug products liability action,
the benefits to society in promoting the development, availability, and
reasonable price of drugs justifies this conclusion.
In light of the strong public interest in the availability and
affordability of prescription medications, the extensive regulatory
system of the FDA, and the avenues of recovery still available to
plaintiffs by claiming inadequate warning, mismanufacture, improper
marketing, or misrepresenting information to the FDA, we conclude
that a broad grant of immunity from strict liability claims based on
design defects should be extended to FDA-approved prescription
drugs in Utah.
Grundberg, 813 P.2d at 98–99. The Court emphasized that “[n]o other class of
products is subject to such special restrictions or protections in our society.” Id. at
96.
Even if the Utah Supreme Court were to extend the bar against strict liability
to FDA-approved medical devices, we predict that it would not extend it to the hip
30
Case: 16-12162 Date Filed: 03/20/2017 Page: 31 of 31
replacement device at issue here because the record is silent as to whether that
device had obtained FDA approval. At oral argument, Wright Medical conceded
that it did not present any evidence at trial as to whether its hip replacement device
was approved by the FDA. Thus, even if Utah law would extend the categorical
bar to FDA-approved medical devices, Wright Medical has not met its burden to
prove that this affirmative defense applies to its hip replacement device.
On this record, any categorical bar to liability for an unavoidably unsafe
product was not available to Wright Medical under Utah law. Accordingly, the
district court did not err in failing to give such an instruction to the jury. Any error
by the district court in instructing the jury on the unavoidably unsafe defense did
not affect the result in this case because the jury found that Wright Medical had not
proven the defense. Thus, the district court’s error was harmless. 12
IV.
We affirm the order of the district court denying the motion of Wright
Medical for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial. The judgment in favor
of plaintiff Robyn Christiansen and against defendant Wright Medical for
$2,100,000 stands.
AFFIRMED.
12. Because we conclude that the jury’s verdict for Christiansen on her strict liability design
defect claim suffices to support the verdict, we need not and do not decide whether the jury
found that Christiansen proved all the elements of her negligent design defect claim.
31