## Facts

- Office-worker plaintiffs alleged repetitive use of Digital Equipment Corporation’s LK201 computer keyboard caused repetitive stress injuries (RSI).
- Patricia Geressy, a secretary, used the LK201 keyboard in her work and claimed she was never warned that keyboard use might cause RSI.
- At trial, disputed questions included whether the keyboard was defectively designed, whether Digital failed to warn of RSI risks, and whether the keyboard caused Geressy’s injuries.
- A jury found for Geressy on negligent design and failure-to-warn theories and awarded $3,490,000 for pain and suffering.
- After the verdict, Digital moved for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) and, alternatively, for a new trial or remittitur as to damages under New York CPLR § 5501(c).

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally insufficient to support liability, requiring judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b).
2. Whether the $3,490,000 pain-and-suffering award materially deviated from reasonable compensation under CPLR § 5501(c), warranting remittitur or a new trial on damages.

## Decision

- The court denied Digital’s Rule 50(b) motion, holding that the record permitted a reasonable jury to find defective design and/or failure to warn and causation.
- The court held the pain-and-suffering award materially deviated from reasonable compensation under CPLR § 5501(c).
- The court ordered remittitur to a reduced amount and afforded Geressy the choice to accept the reduced award or proceed to a new trial on damages.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 50(b) motion, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, draw reasonable inferences in that party’s favor, and may not weigh evidence or assess witness credibility; relief is proper only where the verdict lacks evidentiary support or the contrary proof is overwhelming.
- Under New York CPLR § 5501(c), a court must set aside an award that “deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation,” typically by comparing the verdict to amounts sustained in comparable cases.
- In federal court, remittitur is an appropriate remedy for an excessive jury award: the plaintiff may accept the reduced amount or elect a new trial limited to damages.

## Conclusion

The court left the jury’s liability findings intact under the demanding Rule 50(b) standard but reduced the pain-and-suffering award because, measured against comparable New York verdicts, it materially exceeded reasonable compensation under CPLR § 5501(c).


Geressy v. Digit. Equip. Corp., 980 F. Supp. 640 (E.D.N.Y. 1997)