Cheryl O'Brien v. Rheem Manufacturing Company

Citation: Not availableDocket: M2003-00530-COA-R3-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; May 27, 2004; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Cheryl O’Brien filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Rheem Manufacturing Company following the death of her son, Eric Cole Riley, who sustained fatal injuries from a gasoline explosion in their home on April 25, 1994. The case began with a complaint against multiple parties, including the home contractor and Rheem, but over time O’Brien settled with or dismissed all defendants except Rheem. On July 27, 1999, she narrowed her claims to strict liability after dismissing negligence allegations against Rheem. The first trial resulted in a verdict favoring Rheem, but the trial court later granted a new trial due to evidence admission errors. A second trial in 2001 ended in a mistrial due to jury deadlock. O’Brien then filed a third amended complaint alleging fraudulent concealment, and a subsequent trial in July 2002 again concluded with a verdict for Rheem. O’Brien's motion for a new trial based on the argument that the evidence did not support the jury's verdict was ultimately unsuccessful. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.

On January 27, 2003, Judge John H. Gasaway, III, upheld the jury's verdict that the Rheem gas-fired water heater was neither defectively designed nor unreasonably dangerous, and denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial. The plaintiff appealed, raising three issues: (I) whether there was material evidence supporting the jury's finding of no design defect; (II) whether there was material evidence that the heater was not unreasonably dangerous; and (III) whether there was material evidence that Rheem did not misrepresent the heater's safety. The appellate court's review is restricted to whether substantial material evidence supports the jury's verdict, rather than weighing the evidence itself. The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, assuming its truth and allowing all reasonable inferences while disregarding contrary evidence. Notably, the plaintiff relied heavily on expert testimony to prove claims of defect and misrepresentation, but the jury, having the authority to accept or reject such testimony, found in favor of the defendant. The court emphasized that expert opinions are advisory and not necessarily conclusive, allowing the jury discretion in determining their weight.

The trier of facts is obligated to make decisions based on their fair judgment, even when no opposing expert evidence is presented, relying on the provided expert testimony. In Act-O-Lane Gas Service Co. v. Hall, it was established that a jury is not compelled to accept an expert's testimony as absolute truth. The case referenced, Dickey v. McCord, reaffirmed this principle, indicating that the jury can choose to disregard expert testimony when supported by sufficient evidence. In the current case, the Defendant's expert, Jacob Hall, testified that the water heater in question was not defective or unreasonably dangerous, and could be safely installed in a residential garage if specific conditions regarding elevation and storage of flammable liquids were met. This information was communicated to consumers via a label on the water heater and in the accompanying use and care manual. The jury's verdict, which was upheld by the trial judge, indicates that neither the jury nor the trial court is obligated to accept the Plaintiff's expert testimony, even if uncontradicted. There is ample material evidence supporting the jury's decision, and any evidence favoring the Plaintiff does not alter the outcome. The appellate review concluded, affirming the trial court's judgment with costs assigned to the Plaintiff, and the case is remanded for any necessary further proceedings.