Categories
Home/Law/Bonnie Weisgram died from smoke inhalation during a fire in her home. Her son, Chad Weisgram, sued Marley Co., the maker of a heater, claiming it was defective and caused the fire. At trial, Weisgram offered expert witness testimony to prove the heater was defective. Marley objected that the testimony was unreliable and, therefore, inadmissible, but the judge overruled the objections; the jury found for Weisgram. The appeals court held that the testimony of Weisgram’s expert was not scientifically sound. The appeals court directed a judgment for Marley, holding there were no grounds for a new trial. Weisgram appealed; does he have a good reason for a new trial?

Bonnie Weisgram died from smoke inhalation during a fire in her home. Her son, Chad Weisgram, sued Marley Co., the maker of a heater, claiming it was defective and caused the fire. At trial, Weisgram offered expert witness testimony to prove the heater was defective. Marley objected that the testimony was unreliable and, therefore, inadmissible, but the judge overruled the objections; the jury found for Weisgram. The appeals court held that the testimony of Weisgram’s expert was not scientifically sound. The appeals court directed a judgment for Marley, holding there were no grounds for a new trial. Weisgram appealed; does he have a good reason for a new trial?

No, Chad Weisgram didn’t have a good reason to appeal after the final decision. The Court of Appeal already ruled in favor of Marley Co based on the evidence and scientific justification. The plaintiff and the defendant relied on the scientific nature of their arguments since it was about the serviceability of the heater. This heater had a victim who was the plaintiff’s dead mother. Marly Co. was able to demonstrate the absence of manufacturing defects convincingly.

During the trial itself, Chad Weisgram presented his evidence of the defectiveness of the heater, and an external expert witness confirmed his words. Marley Co. made the right decision by voicing the problem of the unreliability of Chad Weisgram’s accusations. The third-party expert had the goal only of protecting the plaintiff’s interests. Perhaps relying on the human factor and sympathy for the plaintiff, the jury ruled in favor of Chad Weisgram.

Having received no scientific justification for their guilt, Marley Co. filed an appeal, realizing that the appellate court has the right to make final decisions, considering again all the evidence presented at the court session. Perhaps it is appropriate to say that the appellate court was able to look at the incident with a colder eye, so the Marley Co. was able to win in the end.

Despite all the rights of the Court of Appeal to make final decisions, a second appeal is considered an adequate response and a statement to continue the struggle for one’s rightness. Chad Weisgram had the right to file a second appeal, but his main mistake was the lack of new evidence and materials for the court to consider.

The Court of Appeal, by its decision, demonstrated that all the data received earlier were thoroughly studied. If Chad Weisgram had provided new materials (ideally) for the appeal or brought in even more third parties, at a minimum, this appeal could have been accepted. It is considered redundant to allow him to re-appeal without new materials, especially when there was a problem with the scientific validity of the accusations.

Rate the answer:
Views: 2
Answer by Academic.tip's expert
An answer to this question is provided by one of our experts who specializes in law. Let us know how much you liked it and give it a rating.

Cite this page

Select a citation style:

References

Academic.Tips. (2023) 'Bonnie Weisgram died from smoke inhalation during a fire in her home. Her son, Chad Weisgram, sued Marley Co., the maker of a heater, claiming it was defective and caused the fire. At trial, Weisgram offered expert witness testimony to prove the heater was defective. Marley objected that the testimony was unreliable and, therefore, inadmissible, but the judge overruled the objections; the jury found for Weisgram. The appeals court held that the testimony of Weisgram's expert was not scientifically sound. The appeals court directed a judgment for Marley, holding there were no grounds for a new trial. Weisgram appealed; does he have a good reason for a new trial'. 12 May.

Reference

Academic.Tips. (2023, May 12). Bonnie Weisgram died from smoke inhalation during a fire in her home. Her son, Chad Weisgram, sued Marley Co., the maker of a heater, claiming it was defective and caused the fire. At trial, Weisgram offered expert witness testimony to prove the heater was defective. Marley objected that the testimony was unreliable and, therefore, inadmissible, but the judge overruled the objections; the jury found for Weisgram. The appeals court held that the testimony of Weisgram's expert was not scientifically sound. The appeals court directed a judgment for Marley, holding there were no grounds for a new trial. Weisgram appealed; does he have a good reason for a new trial? https://academic.tips/question/bonnie-weisgram-died-from-smoke-inhalation-during-a-fire-in-her-home-her-son-chad-weisgram-sued-marley-co-the-maker-of-a-heater-claiming-it-was-defective-and-caused-the-fire-at-trial-weisgram/

References

Academic.Tips. 2023. "Bonnie Weisgram died from smoke inhalation during a fire in her home. Her son, Chad Weisgram, sued Marley Co., the maker of a heater, claiming it was defective and caused the fire. At trial, Weisgram offered expert witness testimony to prove the heater was defective. Marley objected that the testimony was unreliable and, therefore, inadmissible, but the judge overruled the objections; the jury found for Weisgram. The appeals court held that the testimony of Weisgram's expert was not scientifically sound. The appeals court directed a judgment for Marley, holding there were no grounds for a new trial. Weisgram appealed; does he have a good reason for a new trial?" May 12, 2023. https://academic.tips/question/bonnie-weisgram-died-from-smoke-inhalation-during-a-fire-in-her-home-her-son-chad-weisgram-sued-marley-co-the-maker-of-a-heater-claiming-it-was-defective-and-caused-the-fire-at-trial-weisgram/.

1. Academic.Tips. "Bonnie Weisgram died from smoke inhalation during a fire in her home. Her son, Chad Weisgram, sued Marley Co., the maker of a heater, claiming it was defective and caused the fire. At trial, Weisgram offered expert witness testimony to prove the heater was defective. Marley objected that the testimony was unreliable and, therefore, inadmissible, but the judge overruled the objections; the jury found for Weisgram. The appeals court held that the testimony of Weisgram's expert was not scientifically sound. The appeals court directed a judgment for Marley, holding there were no grounds for a new trial. Weisgram appealed; does he have a good reason for a new trial?" May 12, 2023. https://academic.tips/question/bonnie-weisgram-died-from-smoke-inhalation-during-a-fire-in-her-home-her-son-chad-weisgram-sued-marley-co-the-maker-of-a-heater-claiming-it-was-defective-and-caused-the-fire-at-trial-weisgram/.


Bibliography


Academic.Tips. "Bonnie Weisgram died from smoke inhalation during a fire in her home. Her son, Chad Weisgram, sued Marley Co., the maker of a heater, claiming it was defective and caused the fire. At trial, Weisgram offered expert witness testimony to prove the heater was defective. Marley objected that the testimony was unreliable and, therefore, inadmissible, but the judge overruled the objections; the jury found for Weisgram. The appeals court held that the testimony of Weisgram's expert was not scientifically sound. The appeals court directed a judgment for Marley, holding there were no grounds for a new trial. Weisgram appealed; does he have a good reason for a new trial?" May 12, 2023. https://academic.tips/question/bonnie-weisgram-died-from-smoke-inhalation-during-a-fire-in-her-home-her-son-chad-weisgram-sued-marley-co-the-maker-of-a-heater-claiming-it-was-defective-and-caused-the-fire-at-trial-weisgram/.

Work Cited

"Bonnie Weisgram died from smoke inhalation during a fire in her home. Her son, Chad Weisgram, sued Marley Co., the maker of a heater, claiming it was defective and caused the fire. At trial, Weisgram offered expert witness testimony to prove the heater was defective. Marley objected that the testimony was unreliable and, therefore, inadmissible, but the judge overruled the objections; the jury found for Weisgram. The appeals court held that the testimony of Weisgram's expert was not scientifically sound. The appeals court directed a judgment for Marley, holding there were no grounds for a new trial. Weisgram appealed; does he have a good reason for a new trial?" Academic.Tips, 12 May 2023, academic.tips/question/bonnie-weisgram-died-from-smoke-inhalation-during-a-fire-in-her-home-her-son-chad-weisgram-sued-marley-co-the-maker-of-a-heater-claiming-it-was-defective-and-caused-the-fire-at-trial-weisgram/.

Copy
Of the 2018 legislative changes, which three will have the most important impact on law enforcement operations? Why did you choose those three?
Read the following cases: Unites States v. Antoine Jones and Florida v. Jardines. Why did the court rule that law enforcement officers need a warrant before installing a GPS?
Check the price of your paper