Kenneth Shinedling v. Sunbeam Products

Ninth Circuit

Kenneth Shinedling v. Sunbeam Products

692 F. App'x 902

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 30, 2017

Docket15-56891

StatusUnpublished

This text of 692 F. App'x 902 (Kenneth Shinedling v. Sunbeam Products) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kenneth Shinedling v. Sunbeam Products, 692 F. App'x 902 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

1. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that Sunbeam Products, Inc.’s warnings were inadequate to alert plaintiffs of the fire risks associated with the space heater, particularly the danger of using the heater while sleeping. See Jackson v. Deft, Inc., 223 Cal.App.3d 1305, 273 Cal.Rptr. 214, 223 (1990) (“In most cases ... the adequacy of a warning is a question of fact for the jury.”); see also Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1021 (9th Cir. 2008).

2. Regarding bystander damages, there is substantial evidence that the girls were “present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurred] and [were] then aware that it [was] causing injury to the victim.” Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal.3d 644, 257 Cal.Rptr. 865, 771 P.2d 814, 815 (1989). The jury was able to find that the girls could have had “very little doubt” that their mother was “in the house that [they] saw engulfed in flames.” In re Air Crash Disaster Near Cerritos, California, On Aug. 31, 1986 (Estrada), 967 F.2d 1421, 1425 (9th Cir. 1992). As in Estrada, “[t]he injury-producing event was the fire,” and the girls were not required to be aware of its cause. Id.; see also Fortman v. Förvaltningsbolaget Insulan AB, 212 Cal.App.4th 830, 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 320, 329 n.4 (2013).

3.Finally, substantial evidence supports the amount of emotional distress damages awarded to the girls, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Sunbeam’s motion for a new trial based on excessive damages. See Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 435-36, 116 S.Ct. 2211, 135 L.Ed.2d 659 (1996); Toscano v. Greene Music, 124 Cal.App.4th 685, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 732, 736 (2004) (Under California law, “[t]he amount of damages ... is a fact question committed to the discretion of the trial judge on a motion for new trial; an award of damages will not be disturbed if it is supported by substantial evidence.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

1. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that Sunbeam Products, Inc.’s warnings were inadequate to alert plaintiffs of the fire risks associated with the space heater, particularly the danger of using the heater while sleeping. See Jackson v. Deft, Inc., 223 Cal.App.3d 1305, 273 Cal.Rptr. 214, 223 (1990) (“In most cases ... the adequacy of a warning is a question of fact for the jury.”); see also Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1021 (9th Cir. 2008).

2. Regarding bystander damages, there is substantial evidence that the girls were “present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurred] and [were] then aware that it [was] causing injury to the victim.” Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal.3d 644, 257 Cal.Rptr. 865, 771 P.2d 814, 815 (1989). The jury was able to find that the girls could have had “very little doubt” that their mother was “in the house that [they] saw engulfed in flames.” In re Air Crash Disaster Near Cerritos, California, On Aug. 31, 1986 (Estrada), 967 F.2d 1421, 1425 (9th Cir. 1992). As in Estrada, “[t]he injury-producing event was the fire,” and the girls were not required to be aware of its cause. Id.; see also Fortman v. Förvaltningsbolaget Insulan AB, 212 Cal.App.4th 830, 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 320, 329 n.4 (2013).

3.Finally, substantial evidence supports the amount of emotional distress damages awarded to the girls, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Sunbeam’s motion for a new trial based on excessive damages. See Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 435-36, 116 S.Ct. 2211, 135 L.Ed.2d 659 (1996); Toscano v. Greene Music, 124 Cal.App.4th 685, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 732, 736 (2004) (Under California law, “[t]he amount of damages ... is a fact question committed to the discretion of the trial judge on a motion for new trial; an award of damages will not be disturbed if it is supported by substantial evidence.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

692 F. App'x 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenneth-shinedling-v-sunbeam-products-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack