Weisgram v. Marley Co. is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that addressed whether an appellate court has the authority to direct judgment as a matter of law if expert testimony crucial to a jury verdict was erroneously admitted at trial and, with that evidence excluded, no admissible evidence remains to support the verdict.
This case clarified the scope of appellate review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 and the admissibility requirements for expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The decision has had significant implications for the admissibility of scientific evidence in federal courts and the finality of judgments in cases relying on expert testimony.
Procedural History
The case began when Chad Weisgram, the son of Bonnie Weisgram, brought a diversity wrongful death action in the United States District Court against Marley Company. Bonnie Weisgram died from carbon monoxide poisoning during a fire in her home, and Chad Weisgram alleged that a defective heater manufactured by Marley Co. caused both the fire and his mother’s death.
At trial, the plaintiff (Weisgram) presented the testimony of three expert witnesses to prove the alleged defect in the heater and its causal connection to the fire. Marley Co. objected to the admission of this testimony, arguing it was unreliable and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, but the District Court overruled these objections and allowed the experts to testify.
After the plaintiff presented his case, Marley Co. moved for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a), claiming Weisgram had failed to meet his burden of proof regarding both defect and causation.
The court denied this motion. The jury subsequently returned a verdict for Weisgram, and Marley Co. renewed its request for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, for a new trial. Both motions were denied, and judgment was entered for Weisgram.
Marley Co. appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The appellate court held that the District Court had erred in admitting the expert testimony, as it was speculative and not scientifically sound.
The Eighth Circuit concluded that, with this testimony excluded, no other evidence supported the product defect claim. As a result, the court reversed the District Court’s judgment and directed the entry of judgment as a matter of law for Marley Co., declining to order a new trial. Weisgram then petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari.
Facts
Bonnie Weisgram perished from carbon monoxide poisoning in a fire that broke out in her home. Her son, Chad Weisgram, initiated a federal wrongful death suit against Marley Co., alleging that a defect in the electric baseboard heater manufactured by Marley Co. caused the fire and his mother’s resulting death.
The pivotal evidence supporting Weisgram’s claim consisted of the opinions of three expert witnesses. These experts testified to the alleged heater defect and its supposed connection to the fire.
Marley Co. consistently objected to the admission of these expert opinions under Rule 702, arguing that they were unreliable and thus inadmissible. The District Court, however, admitted the expert testimony and allowed the case to proceed to the jury, which returned a verdict for Weisgram.
Following the trial, Marley Co. again challenged the admissibility of the expert evidence in post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, but both were denied.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found the expert testimony presented by Weisgram to be speculative and not scientifically sound, determining it should have been excluded. The appellate court found that, with the exclusion of this expert evidence, the record lacked any other evidence that could support a finding for Weisgram.
Consequently, the appellate court reversed the District Court’s judgment and directed the entry of judgment as a matter of law in favor of Marley Co., rather than remanding for a new trial.
Issue
The central issue before the Supreme Court in Weisgram v. Marley Co. was:
May an appellate court direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law if it finds that critical evidence (in this case, expert testimony) was erroneously admitted at trial, and with that evidence excluded, the remaining admissible evidence is insufficient to support the verdict?
Weisgram v. Marley Co. Judgment
The Supreme Court unanimously held that:
Yes, an appellate court may direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 if, after excluding erroneously admitted evidence, the remaining evidence is legally insufficient to sustain the verdict.
Reasoning
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court in Weisgram v. Marley Co. The Court reasoned that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 permits an appellate court to direct entry of judgment as a matter of law when, after determining that evidence was improperly admitted, the properly admitted evidence is insufficient to constitute a submissible case.
The Supreme Court explained that parties are on notice that, following the Daubert decision and the adoption of stricter standards for expert testimony under Rule 702, evidence offered by experts must be both reliable and relevant. The Court noted that Marley Co. had properly and timely objected to the admission of the expert testimony both at trial and in post-trial motions.
The Court of Appeals, therefore, acted appropriately in reviewing whether the expert evidence should have been admitted and in determining the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s remaining case.
The Court further clarified that an appellate court is not required to remand for a new trial whenever it determines that a verdict is unsupported due to the exclusion of evidence. Instead, if the losing party on appeal has had a full and fair opportunity to present the case—including the chance to argue for a new trial—the appellate court may properly instruct the district court to enter judgment against the jury-verdict winner.
As Justice Ginsburg wrote:
“If…the court of appeals concludes that further proceedings are unwarranted because the loser on appeal has had a full and fair opportunity to present the case, including arguments for a new trial, the appellate court may appropriately instruct the district court to enter judgment against the jury-verdict winner.”
Conclusion
In conclusion, Weisgram v. Marley Co. stands as a pivotal Supreme Court decision affirming the authority of appellate courts to direct judgment as a matter of law when expert testimony should not have been admitted and no other evidence supports the verdict.
The unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg emphasized the necessity for scientifically valid and reliable expert testimony and clarified procedural rules that continue to guide federal litigation. The legacy of Weisgram v. Marley Co. continues to influence both the admissibility of expert evidence and the appellate review process in United States federal courts.