Bendocchi

Bendocchi v. Howmedica, Inc.

Good Law
2 F. App'x 711
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 18, 2001No. 99-35271; D.C. No. CV-96-00311-EJLCalifornia1,451 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Dolores and Edward Bendocchi appeal the district court’s denial of their motion *713 for a partial new trial on the issue of damages. After Edward Bendocchi’s prosthetic knee failed and had to be replaced, the Bendocchis sued Howmedica, the manufacturer of Edward Bendocchi’s prosthetic knee, asserting a variety of claims including strict liability and negligence. The jury returned a verdict against Howmedica limited to negligent failure to warn Bendocchi of the dangers associated with the knee replacement. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not restate them here.

The Bendocchis’ principal argument is that the district court applied the wrong legal standard when, after the close of the evidence, it refused to allow the jury to consider an award of punitive damages. They contend that the court committed error when, in its oral ruling denying their motion to amend the pleadings to allow a claim for punitive damages, it stated that “the Plaintiffs in the Court’s judgment have not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that an award of punitive damages meets [the applicable standard].”

Idaho law provides that no claim for punitive damages shall be…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.