## Facts

- A manufacturer produced an “Aqua Diver,” a recreational water-diving device combining a platform and trampoline-like mat suspended by cables on a metal frame.
- A 13-year-old first-time user attempted to use the device at a public beach.
- The user fell or slipped from the platform; his leg went through the cables and struck the metal frame, causing severe injury and eventual above-knee amputation.
- The minor’s guardian sued the manufacturer on a strict products-liability theory alleging the product was unreasonably dangerous, including for inadequate warnings and instructions.
- A jury returned verdicts for the manufacturer and the beach operator.
- The trial court granted a new trial against the manufacturer, finding the defense verdict was against the weight of the evidence under Indiana Trial Rule 59(E)(7), while leaving the defense verdict for the beach operator intact.
- The manufacturer appealed the order granting a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting a new trial on the ground that the jury’s verdict for the manufacturer was against the weight of the evidence under Trial Rule 59(E)(7).
2. Whether the record contained sufficient evidence of unreasonable dangerousness and inadequate warnings/instructions to provide a rational basis for setting aside the defense verdict and ordering a new trial.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the order granting a new trial against the manufacturer.
- The court held the trial judge did not abuse discretion in concluding the verdict for the manufacturer was against the weight of the evidence.
- The court applied a deferential review, recognizing the trial judge’s authority to weigh evidence when ruling on the post-trial motion.
- The court concluded the record contained substantial evidence supporting the plaintiff’s theories that the device’s configuration posed foreseeable risks and that warnings/instructions were inadequate, making the new-trial order permissible.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court may grant a new trial when a verdict is against the weight of the evidence under Indiana Trial Rule 59(E)(7).
- In ruling on such a motion, the trial judge may weigh the evidence rather than viewing it only in the light most favorable to the verdict.
- Appellate review of a weight-of-the-evidence new-trial order is highly deferential; reversal is warranted only for abuse of discretion or action contrary to law.
- In strict products liability, a product may be found unreasonably dangerous based on design features creating serious injury risk during foreseeable use, and liability may also rest on inadequate warnings or instructions concerning non-obvious dangers.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the trial court’s decision to grant a new trial against the manufacturer, concluding that the trial judge acted within the discretion permitted by Trial Rule 59(E)(7) because the record provided a sufficient basis to find the defense verdict contrary to the weight of the evidence on unreasonable dangerousness and failure to warn.


Nissen Trampoline Co. v. Terre Haute First Nat'l Bank, 332 N.E.2d 820 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975)