Evidence — relevance

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Evidence — relevance

Where the district court, in a products liability action, failed to stop the defendant’s counsel from arguing to the jury that the plaintiff’s counsel brought the case as part of a joint venture with an inventor to force the defendant to license the technology, a new trial is required.

“Ryobi’s argument that plaintiff’s counsel brought this suit as part of a joint venture with Gass to force Ryobi to license Gass’s technology was improper. The first problem with this argument is that it is not relevant to any issue in dispute. The suggestion that the case was an intellectual property case ‘masquerading as a personal injury case’ did not bear on whether Ryobi designed and sold a defective product. How does a statement about counsel’s motive help a jury decide whether there was an injury? A duty? A breach of that duty? Or causation?”

Vacated and Remanded.

12-2984 Stollings v. Ryobi Technologies, Inc.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Feinerman, J., Hamilton, J.