The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed a jury verdict for the defendant because defendants’ counsel was allowed to argue that the lawsuit was part of a joint venture between the attorney for plaintiff and one of the expert witnesses. In Stollings v. Ryobi Technologies, Inc.,2013 WL 3964477 the plaintiff lost an index finger and portions of other fingers in a table saw accident and sued the saw manufacturer alleging that it defectively designed the saw because it failed to equip the saw with either of two safety features: a riving knife – a small blade that holds the cut in the wood open to prevent kickbacks and the automatic breaking technology which would stop the saw blade upon contact with human tissue. One of the plaintiff’s expert witness Steven Gass developed the automatic breaking system in 1999 and attempted to license it to table saw manufacturers including the defendant. Defendants’ counsel argued to the jury on several occasions that the plaintiff’s brought the lawsuit as part of a joint venture with Gass to force saw manufacturers to license the technology.
The Court of Appeals held that the attack on motives of plaintiffs’ counsel deprived the plaintiff of a fair trial since it served to direct the jury’s focus away from the elements of the case to extraneous and inflammatory considerations. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment for the defendant and remanded the case for a new trial.