Brad Michael Williams | Attorney

James v. Cincinnati Inc, No. 06-60163 (5th Cir. 2007)

In this case, James sued Cincinnati under the Mississippi Products Liability Act (MPLA), alleging a press brake was defectively designed due to the absence of a safety device called a "light curtain." Cincinnati challenged the admissibility of expert witness L.D. Ryan’s testimony regarding alternative design, asserting he was unqualified and his methods unreliable under Daubert standards, but the district court permitted Ryan’s testimony with some restrictions. A jury awarded James $850,000 in damages, attributing 60% fault to Cincinnati. Cincinnati appealed, challenging the admission of expert testimony, denial of Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL), denial of a requested jury instruction, prejudicial questioning during cross-examination, and the jury's award as excessive. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s rulings, finding no manifest error in admitting Ryan’s expert testimony, sufficient evidence supporting the jury’s verdict under the MPLA, no abuse of discretion in refusing the requested instruction, no reversible error in cross-examination, and no justification for remittitur or a new trial; thus, the judgment was affirmed.

Don’t Steer Away from Auto Accident Revenue Cycle Challenges, Healthcare Financial Managers Association, September 18,

2018