Overpeck v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co.

I believe that the jury had evidence before it that was sufficient to support its finding. The threshold required to sustain the jury verdict is very low, see Bonjorno v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 752 F.2d 802, 811 (3d Cir.1984), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 3284, 91 L.Ed.2d 572 (1986), and in my view was easily surpassed in this case. I would therefore reverse the district court’s grant of judgment n.o.v. and reinstate the jury verdict.

In this failure to warn case, as in all such cases, the plaintiff had to establish (1) that the allegedly required warning contemplated the…