Ingvalson

MEMORANDUM

Cosco appeals a jury verdict and damage award for Ingvalson, in a product liability action relating to a defective step stool. We affirm.

Cosco argues that four instances of misconduct by Ingvalson’s attorney warrant a new trial. Cosco must meet a substantial burden to overturn a trial court’s ruling in this area, as “the trial court is in a superior position to gauge the prejudicial impact of counsel’s conduct during trial[, and w]e will not disturb the district court’s ruling unless we have a definite and firm conviction that the court committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion that it reached.” Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distributors, 69 F.3d 337, 346 (9th Cir.1995). Cosco does not present sufficient evidence to warrant disturbing the magistrate judge’s rulings.

Cosco first points to plaintiffs counsel’s use of the step stool during opening statements. It claims that his ascent and collapse of the step stool was impermissible testimony by counsel which had such a prejudicial impact on the jury that it could not be rectified. However, counsel’s conduct does not remotely approach the level recognized as improper by this Court. See, e.g.,…