Summary
The Fifth Circuit held that evidence of the fact of settlements by co-defendants was admissible to explain their absence from an asbestos-liability trial, but that the trial court erred by revealing settlement amounts to the jury and instructing it to consider those amounts in determining damages. The court also held that the trial judge impermissibly commented on the ultimate factual issue of damages and encouraged a particular verdict. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether admitting evidence that the plaintiffs had settled with other defendants violated Federal Rule of Evidence 408.
- Whether instructing the jury about the amounts of the prior settlements and directing it to reconsider its damages award violated Federal Rule of Evidence 408.
- Whether the trial judge's supplemental instructions and comments on the amount of damages invaded the jury's fact-finding function and deprived Pittsburgh Corning of an impartial jury.
Holdings
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence that the plaintiffs had settled with other defendants because the evidence was offered to explain the absence of those defendants at trial, not to prove liability or the amount of damages.
- The trial court violated Federal Rule of Evidence 408 by instructing the jury to consider the amounts of the prior settlements in determining the amount of damages.
- The trial court's supplemental instructions and comments invaded the jury's fact-finding function by expressing an opinion about the amount of damages and encouraging a particular verdict.
Key quotations
“These instructions violated Rule 408 because they directed the jury to consider the settlement as part of the proof of the amount of the claim.” (503)
“On these facts, there can be no hesitation in concluding that the trial court encouraged a verdict, and in so doing invaded the jury's fact-finding function.” (504)
“Upon consideration of those instructions and the jury's obedience to their direction, it is clear that the verdict upon which the judgment appealed from was entered did not represent the views of an impartial jury.” (504)
Factual background
Belton and Crochet alleged that exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by multiple defendants caused asbestos-related diseases. Before trial, Belton settled with fifteen defendants for $259,843.88, and Crochet settled with thirteen defendants for $145,398.42, leaving Pittsburgh Corning as the sole nonsettling defendant. The district court initially allowed the fact of settlement to explain the absence of the settling defendants, but later disclosed the settlement amounts and repeatedly instructed the jury to reconsider its damages awards in light of those amounts. The jury ultimately returned a third verdict awarding $284,843.88 to Belton and $220,398.42 to Crochet, with only $25,000 and $75,000 respectively allocated to Pittsburgh Corning.
Procedural history
Belton and Crochet sued Pittsburgh Corning and other asbestos-product defendants in the Eastern District of Texas. The other defendants settled before trial, leaving Pittsburgh Corning as the only nonsettling defendant. After the jury returned three successive damages verdicts following supplemental instructions concerning the prior settlements, the district court entered judgment on the third verdict. The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Remand instructions
Remand for a new trial.