ANDERSON v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO. U.S.D.C., 377 F.Supp. 136 (1974). CASE BRIEF

ANDERSON V. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO.

U.S.D.C., 377 F.Supp. 136 (1974).

NATURE OF THE CASE: Sears (Ds) manufacturers of defective heater and component parts, defendant installer and repairer of heater, and defendant insurers, sought remittitur of damages awarded to Anderson (P), infant daughter, for burn injuries she suffered in a house fire caused by heater.

FACTS: The Britains' home was completely consumed by a fire which was ignited by a defective D heater. Both Mildred Britain and her infant daughter, P, were severely burned and P suffered multiple permanent injuries. P sued Ds (Sears, Roebuck and Company, Preway, Inc., and Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin. Preway, Inc. and its insurer, Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, third-partied Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., the insurer of Controls Company of America, and Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd. as an additional defendant) Ps allege that D was negligent in the installation, maintenance, and repair of the heater. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Mildred Britain, Harry Britain, individually, and Harry Britain, as administrator of the estate of P, and against Sears, Preway and Preway's insurer, Employers Mutual of Wausau, for two hundred fifty thousand dollars, twenty-three thousand dollars, and two million dollars respectively. Ds moved for post-trial relief via motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial, and/or alternatively, a remittitur. The sole issue presently before the court is whether the damages awarded to P were excessive.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner