In Mary Bayes v. Biomet, Inc., No. 21-2964 (8th Cir. December 14, 2022), the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in plaintiffs’ product liability claim, denying Biomet’s motions for a judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or remittitur. Plaintiffs, sued Biomet, Inc. after the wife’s M2a Magnum hip implant failed. The wife argued that the implant caused irreparable damage to her hip joint and surrounding tissues. A jury awarded the wife $20 million in damages. The jury awarded an additional $1 million in damages to her husband for his loss of consortium. Biomet appealed, arguing that (1) the jury’s verdict was inconsistent, (2) Plaintiffs failed to establish the required standard of care, (3) Plaintiffs failed to show a breach by Biomet, and (4) the damages award was excessive.
The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff on her liability product-defect claim and for the defendant on her strict liability claim, but the district court did not err in determining the jury verdicts were not irreconcilably inconsistent as the strict liability instruction did not require the jury to find proof of a reasonably anticipated use and the instructions thus set differing proof elements, according to the eight Circuit.
The Eighth Circuit thus affirmed the judgment of the district court. The court explained that the jury could have, in its discretion, believed or discounted the expert testimony in its entirety. Further, the jury could have determined whether Biomet’s testing procedures met industry standards. If credited by the jury, this testimony was a sufficient evidentiary basis to conclude that Biomet failed to meet a reasonable standard of care. Thus, the court did not overturn the jury’s determination because the jury had a sufficient evidentiary basis to find a design defect. Further, the court deferred to the jury’s judgment as to whether $20 million is the correct compensation for a lifetime of hip dislocations and seven revision surgeries.