## Facts

- Kathy Lavoie, a General Electric employee in Vermont, was injured while operating a Pacific-manufactured hydraulic press brake; her left hand was crushed, causing multiple finger amputations and loss of use.
- Lavoie alleged the machine was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous, including for lack of safety devices and noncompliance with OSHA-related safety requirements.
- She sued the manufacturer under Vermont law for (1) strict products liability, (2) implied warranty of merchantability, (3) implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and (4) negligence.
- The court and counsel discussed potential inconsistencies among theories at a pre-charge conference; counsel reviewed proposed jury instructions and verdict forms before they went to the jury.
- The jury received two written form sets: a question-based form addressing each theory and a separate form calling for general liability findings on each theory.
- The jury found no liability on strict liability and both implied-warranty theories, but found Pacific negligent and apportioned fault 85% to Pacific and 15% to Lavoie, awarding $412,250 in damages.
- After the verdict was returned and the jury was polled, Pacific did not object to any inconsistency or to the verdict form before the jury was discharged.
- Post-trial, Pacific sought judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial on evidentiary sufficiency, intervening cause, and jury sympathy, but did not raise any Rule 49 inconsistency argument until appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether Pacific waived any challenge to an alleged inconsistency between the jury’s liability findings by failing to object before the jury was discharged.
2. Whether the verdict procedure was governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(a) (special verdict) or Rule 49(b) (general verdict with interrogatories), and how that classification affects review of inconsistency.
3. Whether the evidence supported the negligence and causation findings, including whether employer conduct constituted an intervening cause requiring judgment for Pacific or a new trial.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment for Lavoie.
- Pacific waived its inconsistency challenge by failing to object to the verdict forms or to any inconsistency before the jury was discharged, despite notice and opportunity to do so.
- The court treated the procedure as a general verdict with answers to interrogatories under Rule 49(b), not a pure special verdict under Rule 49(a).
- The negligence verdict was supported by sufficient evidence; alleged intervening cause was properly submitted to the jury.

## Legal Principles

- A party forfeits appellate review of objections to jury instructions, verdict forms, or asserted inconsistencies between verdict components by failing to raise the objection before the jury is discharged.
- Verdicts combining a general verdict with written interrogatories are analyzed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(b); timely invocation is required so the trial court can direct reconsideration or otherwise cure defects.
- Courts should attempt to reconcile a general verdict and interrogatory answers where possible, particularly in the Rule 49(b) setting.
- Under Vermont law applied in this case, whether third-party conduct breaks causation as an intervening cause is ordinarily a jury question when the evidence permits competing inferences.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit left intact a jury’s negligence verdict and comparative-fault apportionment in a products-injury case, holding that the manufacturer’s failure to object to any alleged inconsistency in the verdict structure before the jury was excused waived a Rule 49 challenge and that the evidence permitted the jury to find negligent design and causation despite claims of intervening employer conduct.


Lavoie v. Pac. Press & Shear Co., 975 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1992)