## Facts

- Allen Plyler installed a Whirlpool over-the-range microwave in his home; about seven years later, a fire started in the microwave during the early morning.
- Firefighters extinguished the fire; Plyler claimed he injured his elbow and knee while responding to the emergency and later developed PTSD.
- Plyler alleged the fire resulted from the same defect involved in Whirlpool’s 2001 recall of certain microwave models.
- Whirlpool’s product safety director testified that the recalled defect created a fire hazard only when (1) the microwave had accumulated, uncleaned food splatter, (2) the unit was running, and (3) the defect was present in that unit.
- A fire department investigator testified the fire originated near the top of the microwave but could not determine the fire’s specific cause.
- Plyler testified he kept the microwave clean and it was not running when the fire began; he described seeing multiple fires inside the microwave and an orange glow near the top.
- Whirlpool presented evidence of recall efforts coordinated with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, direct mail to registered owners, and public announcements; it repaired about 75% of recalled units.
- Plyler claimed he never received recall notice and argued Whirlpool should have located him through his credit card purchase information.
- At trial, Whirlpool cross-examined Plyler about whether the fire was connected to his divorce as part of disputing causation and scope of his emotional distress claim.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 by limiting Plyler’s testimony to lay observations and excluding his causation opinions about the fire.
2. Whether the trial court erred by permitting limited cross-examination about Plyler’s divorce as relevant to claimed PTSD and emotional damages.
3. Whether the jury’s defense verdict on strict liability and negligent recall was against the manifest weight of the evidence, requiring a new trial.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment for Whirlpool and the denial of Plyler’s motion for a new trial.
- The court held there was no abuse of discretion in restricting Plyler to sensory observations and excluding his lay opinions attributing the fire to the recalled defect.
- The court held the divorce-related questioning was permissible to test alternative sources and extent of emotional distress, and the trial court reasonably controlled prejudice and scope.
- The court held the verdict was supported by the record because there was no expert proof tying the fire to the recalled defect and the evidence supported a finding that Whirlpool’s recall efforts were reasonable.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, lay opinion must be rationally based on perception, helpful, and not based on specialized knowledge; technical causation opinions generally require expert testimony under Rule 702.
- A lay witness may testify to what was observed during an event but may not supply product-defect or fire-causation inferences that depend on technical expertise.
- When a plaintiff claims emotional or psychological damages, evidence of other major life events may be relevant to causation and extent of harm; admissibility remains subject to Federal Rule of Evidence 403 balancing.
- A new trial based on the manifest weight of the evidence is reviewed deferentially; a verdict stands if there is a reasonable basis in the record.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld a jury verdict for Whirlpool, concluding that the trial court properly limited lay testimony on fire causation, allowed constrained inquiry into alternative sources of emotional distress, and reasonably denied a new trial because the record supported findings of no proven defect causation and no negligent recall.


Plyler v. Whirlpool Corp., 751 F.3d 509 (7th Cir. 2014)