## Facts

- Bonnie Weisgram died from carbon monoxide poisoning during a house fire in December 1993.
- Chad Weisgram, individually and on behalf of her heirs, sued in diversity alleging a defect in a Marley electric baseboard heater caused the fire and death.
- To prove defect and causation, plaintiffs relied on three expert witnesses; the district court admitted their testimony over objections under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and *Daubert*.
- Marley moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) at the close of plaintiff’s case and again at the close of all evidence; both motions were denied.
- The jury returned a verdict for Weisgram; Marley renewed its JMOL motion and alternatively sought a new trial under Rules 50 and 59, arguing the experts were unreliable and inadmissible; the district court denied post-trial relief and entered judgment for Weisgram.
- The Eighth Circuit held the expert testimony supporting defect was speculative and not scientifically sound, excluded it, found the remaining evidence insufficient, and directed entry of JMOL for Marley without remanding for a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 50 permits a court of appeals to direct entry of JMOL after concluding that critical expert testimony was erroneously admitted and that the remaining admissible evidence is insufficient to support the verdict.
2. Whether an appellate court must remand for a new trial to allow the plaintiff to present additional evidence after exclusion of expert testimony previously admitted at trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Marley.
- Rule 50 authorizes appellate courts to direct entry of JMOL when, after excluding erroneously admitted evidence, the remaining properly admitted evidence cannot sustain a reasonable jury verdict.
- The court of appeals was not required to remand for a new trial and acted within its authority in directing judgment rather than providing another opportunity to prove the case.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 50, appellate courts may render the judgment the district court should have rendered when the party bearing the burden lacks a legally sufficient evidentiary basis once inadmissible proof is set aside.
- Exclusion on appeal of expert testimony admitted at trial can properly lead to JMOL if the remaining record is insufficient to make a submissible case.
- A party is not entitled to a new trial merely because it relied on expert evidence later found inadmissible under Rule 702/*Daubert*; litigants are on notice that admissibility is subject to reliability screening and appellate correction.
- Rule 50’s structure supports final resolution without retrial when the properly constituted evidentiary record cannot support the verdict.

## Conclusion

The Court held that when an appellate court determines that key expert testimony was wrongly admitted and the remaining admissible evidence is insufficient, Rule 50 permits the appellate court to direct entry of judgment as a matter of law for the opposing party without remanding for a new trial.


Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440 (2000)