Court Case Study: Civil Liquo V.

221 Words1 Page

Holding The court was in unanimous agreement of the decision. They rejected the defendant’s appeals for retrial, motion for JNOV (Judgment notwithstanding verdict), rejected their motion for remittur (reduction of punitive damages granted by jury). The rulings were mostly in favor of the plaintiff. The jury returned its verdict on February 25, 2013, finding: • Prolift’s design was not defective • Ethicon’s warnings to the implanting surgeon was inadequate. • The defendant’s failure to provide complete warnings was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. • The defendants did not make fraudulent misrepresentation to the implanting surgeon. • The defendants made a fraudulent misrepresentation to plaintiff • The defendants' fraudulent

More about Court Case Study: Civil Liquo V.

Open Document