Adams

MEMORANDUM ,

Defendant-Appellant E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company (“DuPont”), the manufacturer of the herbicide Oust, appeals from the district court’s judgment and post-trial orders following a jury trial. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 , 1294(1). Because the facts of this case are well known by the parties we do not repeat them here, except as necessary.

1. The district court found that Plaintiffs presented evidence that at most showed DuPont’s nonfeasance, which cannot, as a matter of law, support an assumed duty of care claim. It therefore granted DuPont’s Rule 50(b) motion as to that claim. DuPont now asserts that it is entitled to a new trial as to all issues because “stewardship principles impacted every aspect of the trial ... and ultimately infected the entirety of the jury’s verdict.”

DuPont has not, however, identified any case in which a new trial has been granted in circumstances comparable to those here. We find no merit in DuPont’s ai'gument, particularly in light of the fact that it made strategic use of its corporate stewardship policy — which was part of the assumed duty claim — during the trial. DuPont must bear the risk of its own…