Mary Bayes v. Biomet, Inc., No. 21-2964 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiffs, husband and wife, sued Biomet, Inc. and associated entities (Biomet) after the wife’s M2a Magnum hip implant failed. The M2a Magnum is a large-diameter metal-on-metal hip implant produced by Biomet. The wife argued that the implant caused irreparable damage to her hip joint and surrounding tissues. A jury awarded the wife $20 million in damages. The jury awarded an additional $1 million in damages to her husband for his loss of consortium. Biomet appealed, arguing that (1) the jury’s verdict was inconsistent, (2) Plaintiffs failed to establish the required standard of care, (3) Plaintiffs failed to show a breach by Biomet, and (4) the damages award was excessive.
The Eighth Circuit disagreed and affirmed the judgment of the district court. The court explained that the jury could have, in its discretion, believed or discounted the expert testimony in its entirety. Further, the jury could have determined whether Biomet’s testing procedures met industry standards. If credited by the jury, this testimony was a sufficient evidentiary basis to conclude that Biomet failed to meet a reasonable standard of care. Thus, the court did not overturn the jury’s determination because the jury had a sufficient evidentiary basis to find a design defect. Further, the court deferred to the jury’s judgment as to whether $20 million is the correct compensation for a lifetime of hip dislocations and seven revision surgeries.
Court Description: [Smith, Author, with Kelly and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Products liability. Where the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff on her liability product-defect claim and for the defendant on her strict liability claim, the district court did not err in determining the jury verdicts were not irreconcilably inconsistent as the strict liability instruction did not require the jury to find proof of a reasonably anticipated use and the instructions thus set differing proof elements; there was a sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury to determine that defendant failed to meet a reasonable standard of care; there was also sufficient evidence to show defendant breached its duty of care in designing the product, both with respect to ion release from metal-on-metal implants and with respect to the choice of the size of the hip implant cup; $20 million jury verdict affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.