## Facts

- Kathleen Jarvis bought a 1991 Ford Aerostar minivan.
- Six days later, while Jarvis was driving, the van allegedly suddenly accelerated without her depressing the accelerator.
- Jarvis testified she could not stop the van by pumping the brakes, and a serious crash occurred, causing significant injuries.
- Jarvis sued Ford Motor Company, alleging negligent design of the cruise control mechanism and strict products liability for a defective design.
- The case was tried to a jury on both negligence and strict liability design-defect theories.
- The jury found for Jarvis on negligence, found for Ford on strict products liability, and awarded damages.
- After the verdict, Ford moved for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), arguing insufficient evidence and inconsistency between the negligence and strict-liability verdicts.
- The district court granted Ford’s Rule 50(b) motion and dismissed the complaint; it also reduced damages for collateral source payments under N.Y. C.P.L.R. 4545(c).
- Jarvis appealed, challenging the Rule 50(b) ruling and the treatment of Ford’s inconsistency argument; she also challenged the collateral source reduction procedure.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence provided a legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to find Ford negligent, making Rule 50(b) judgment as a matter of law improper.
2. Whether Ford preserved an objection to the allegedly inconsistent negligence/strict-liability verdicts, or waived it by failing to object timely and specifically under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by reducing damages for collateral source payments under N.Y. C.P.L.R. 4545(c) without holding a separate evidentiary hearing.

## Decision

- The court vacated the judgment as a matter of law because the trial evidence, viewed in the verdict’s favor, permitted a reasonable jury to find negligence.
- The court held Ford waived any inconsistency challenge by failing to make a timely, specific Rule 51 objection to the instructions and verdict form before the jury retired, and no fundamental error excused the waiver.
- The court affirmed the collateral source reduction and found no abuse of discretion in not holding a separate hearing.
- The court remanded for reinstatement of the jury’s negligence verdict and damages award as reduced for collateral source payments.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 50(b) judgment as a matter of law is improper if there is a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the nonmoving party; review requires viewing evidence and inferences in favor of the verdict.
- Under Rule 51, a party must object to jury instructions and verdict forms before the jury retires and must state distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds; failure to do so waives the claim.
- In a negligent-design product-malfunction case, the plaintiff need not prove the precise defect mechanism if circumstantial and expert evidence supports an inference of malfunction attributable to negligent design and tends to exclude other reasonable causes.
- Damages may be reduced for collateral source payments under N.Y. C.P.L.R. 4545(c), and the trial court has discretion regarding whether a separate evidentiary hearing is necessary.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit reinstated the jury’s negligence verdict by vacating the Rule 50(b) dismissal, held Ford forfeited any claim of verdict inconsistency by not complying with Rule 51’s objection requirements, and affirmed the damages reduction for collateral source payments.


Jarvis v. Ford Motor Co., 283 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2002)