## Facts

- Debra Nelson used a Sunbeam space heater (Model SQH310) in her bedroom.
- Nelson fainted, fell, and tipped the heater over, coming to rest with her bare back on the heater’s front grill.
- Nelson could not move away for a period of time, and she sustained third-degree burns from extended contact with the hot grill.
- The heater had a warning label instructing users to avoid burns by keeping bare skin away from the grill.
- Nelson sued Sunbeam Products, Inc. (doing business as Jarden Consumer Solutions) asserting multiple theories, including strict products liability.
- Before trial, Nelson did not pursue strict-liability claims for manufacturing defect and failure to warn, and she did not pursue a breach-of-warranty claim.
- During trial, Nelson dropped her negligence claim, leaving only a strict-liability design-defect claim under Texas law for the jury.
- Nelson’s engineering witness, Dr. McClellan, testified that the heater’s grill reached about 275°F and could cause third-degree burns in under one second.
- McClellan testified the heater’s tip-over safety switch shut the heater off when tipped forward or backward, but not when tipped in other directions.
- McClellan identified alternative safety features used in other space heaters, including (1) a secondary grill that creates an air gap to reduce contact temperature and (2) an omnidirectional tip-over switch that shuts the unit off when tipped in any direction.
- McClellan built and tested a prototype incorporating a secondary grill and an omnidirectional safety switch; he reported a reduced grill touch temperature (about 110°F), shutoff in any tip-over direction, and comparable heating performance.
- McClellan testified the changes were feasible and would increase manufacturing cost by roughly 10%.
- The jury found for Nelson on design defect and causation, and Sunbeam filed a post-verdict motion seeking judgment as a matter of law and, alternatively, a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether, on Sunbeam’s renewed Rule 50(b) motion, the trial evidence was legally sufficient for a reasonable jury to find a design defect under Texas law, including the required safer alternative design and producing cause.
2. Whether, on Sunbeam’s Rule 59 motion, the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence or the trial contained prejudicial error requiring a new trial.

## Decision

- The court denied Sunbeam’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b).
- The court denied Sunbeam’s motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.
- The court held that the jury had a legally sufficient basis to find the heater unreasonably dangerous based on evidence of the grill’s high temperature and the limits of the tip-over shutoff function.
- The court held Nelson presented sufficient evidence of a safer alternative design through testimony and testing of a secondary grill and an omnidirectional tip-over switch, including evidence that similar features were available in competing heaters.
- The court held a reasonable jury could find producing cause because the proposed design changes could (a) shut off the heater when tipped in the way it tipped during Nelson’s fall and/or (b) reduce surface temperature so that contact would be less likely to cause severe burns.
- The court declined to reweigh competing testimony or make credibility calls that were for the jury.
- The court concluded Sunbeam did not show a basis to set aside the verdict as a matter of law or to order a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 50(b): A court may grant judgment as a matter of law only if a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the nonmovant; the court must draw reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict and may not weigh credibility.
- Rule 59: A new trial may be granted if the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence or if prejudicial error made the trial unfair; disagreement with the jury’s weighing of evidence is not enough.
- Texas design defect (strict liability): The plaintiff must prove the product was defectively designed so as to be unreasonably dangerous, that a safer alternative design existed, and that the design defect was a producing cause of the injury.
- Safer alternative design: Evidence may include proof that the alternative was technologically and economically feasible, reduced the risk of harm, and did not substantially impair the product’s utility; prototype testing and evidence of similar designs in comparable products may support feasibility.
- Producing cause: The plaintiff must show the defect was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury and that the injury would not have occurred without it; the jury may draw reasonable inferences from lay and technical testimony.

## Conclusion

The Eastern District of Texas (Mazzant, J.) denied Sunbeam’s post-verdict requests for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, holding that the jury could reasonably rely on Nelson’s testimony and Dr. McClellan’s testing and prototype evidence to find that the space heater’s design was unreasonably dangerous, that feasible safer design changes existed (a secondary grill and an omnidirectional tip-over switch), and that the design defect was a producing cause of Nelson’s burn injuries.


Nelson v. Sunbeam Products, Inc., 2022 WL 79838, 579 F. Supp. 3d 857 (2022)