## Facts

- Wilbur McLaughlin was injured while preparing a Pfauter Model P-900 gear hobbing machine for operation during a manual set-up phase requiring the machine to be “jogged” while the operator had access to the cutting area.
- The machine was manufactured by Hermann Pfauter and sold/distributed by Fellows Gear Shaper Company (FGS).
- While standing on top of the machine during set-up, McLaughlin’s left thumb contacted the cutting mechanism and was amputated.
- The McLaughlins sued FGS under products liability theories, alleging defective design for failing to include safety mechanisms such as an automatic interlock or two-hand control to prevent operation when hands were in a danger zone.
- FGS argued it was not reasonably foreseeable that an operator would stand on top of an energized machine and that McLaughlin assumed the risk of injury.

## Issues

1. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(b), may a trial court submit supplemental interrogatories and return the jury for further deliberations to resolve apparent inconsistencies in special interrogatory answers and the verdict?
2. Did the district court err by setting aside the jury’s assumption-of-risk finding as unsupported by the evidence and entering judgment for the plaintiffs?
3. Under Pennsylvania law, what evidentiary showing is required to prove assumption of risk in a products liability case involving workplace conduct?

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the judgment for the McLaughlins.
- The district court acted within its Rule 49(b) authority by submitting supplemental interrogatories to clarify the jury’s intent and reconcile the verdict with the interrogatory answers.
- The district court did not err in setting aside the jury’s assumption-of-risk answer because the record lacked evidence that McLaughlin knowingly and voluntarily accepted the specific risk that caused the injury.
- The jury’s supplemental answers (that standing on the machine was neither a substantial factor nor the sole cause) and its confirmation in open court supported entry of judgment for plaintiffs.
- The appellate court rejected FGS’s additional claims of trial error, including challenges related to defect proof, instructions, and expert/technical evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(b), when special interrogatory answers appear inconsistent with each other or with the verdict, the court may return the jury for further consideration and may use supplemental interrogatories to clarify and reconcile the jury’s findings.
- A court is not required to declare a mistrial or enter judgment based on an initial set of seemingly inconsistent answers if clarification can reasonably resolve the inconsistency.
- Under Pennsylvania law, assumption of risk requires proof that the plaintiff subjectively knew of the specific danger, appreciated that risk, and voluntarily chose to encounter it.
- Mere inadvertence, carelessness, or momentary distraction does not constitute assumption of risk absent proof of conscious, deliberate exposure to the particular hazard that produced the injury.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit upheld a products liability verdict for an injured machine operator, holding that Rule 49(b) permits a trial court to cure apparent inconsistencies in jury interrogatory answers through supplemental questions and further deliberations, and that assumption of risk was properly rejected where the evidence did not show the plaintiff’s knowing and voluntary acceptance of the specific risk that caused the injury.


McLaughlin v. Fellows Gear Shaper Co., 786 F.2d 592 (3d Cir. 1986)