Crouch et al v. Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc.
Order on Jury Trial as set out. By separate document, the Court will enter judgment in accordance with the verdict of the jury. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 8/9/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Verdict) (mca)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
LARRY DALE CROUCH,
RHONDA MAE CROUCH,
TEDDY LEE HUDSON, and
CAROLYN SUE HUDSON,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-00072-KD-N
This action came before the Court for jury selection on June 28, 2011, and trial by jury
beginning July 18, 2011 and ending August 5, 2011, with United States District Judge Kristi K.
On July 18, 2011, the jury was duly sworn and trial commenced. Plaintiffs Larry Dale
Crouch, Rhonda Mae Crouch, Teddy Lee Hudson, and Carolyn Sue Hudson presented their casein-chief and rested on August 1, 2011. Defendant Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc. (TCM)
moved for judgment as a matter of law at the close of Plaintiff=s evidence and the motion was
taken under submission (docs. 378, 379).
On August 1, 2011, TCM began presentation of its case-in-chief. On the morning of
August 4, 2011, the Court addressed TCM’s motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close
of Plaintiffs’ evidence.1
TCM concluded its case-in-chief and rested on August 4, 2011. TCM moved for
judgment as a matter of law at the close of all evidence and the motion was taken under
submission (doc. 382). The Court then held a charge conference with counsel. On the afternoon
of August 4, 2011, the parties gave their closing arguments and the court recessed.
On the morning of August 5, 2011, the Court reconvened the charge conference. The
Court then charged the jury on the applicable law and the jury commenced their deliberations.
On August 5, 2011, the jury having heard the evidence, the arguments of counsel, the charge of
the Court and having considered the same upon their oaths, the jury deliberated and returned the
following verdict (a copy of which is attached hereto):
Strict liability: Are you satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that when
TCM sold the magneto it was defective and unreasonably dangerous and that the
magneto was a substantial factor in causing the accident?
Negligence: Are you satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that after the
magneto was sold that TCM negligently failed to warn that the magneto was
unreasonably dangerous and that such was a substantial factor in causing the
Breach of warranty: Are you satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that the
magneto was unfit for its intended purpose and that this defect was a substantial
factor in causing the crash?
On the morning of August 4, 2011, as set forth on the record, the Court granted in part
TCM’s motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of Plaintiffs’ evidence as to any
claims or issues based upon the status of John Jewell Aircraft, Inc., or John Jewell as an agent for
TCM. The motion was denied as to all remaining claims or issues addressed therein.
By separate document, the Court will enter judgment in accordance with the verdict of
DONE and ORDERED this the 9th day of August, 2011.
s / Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?