[UNPUBLISHED]

Clarence Nice was severely injured when a bolt holding the elevating cylinder of a drilling machine broke, causing the elevating cylinder to strike Nice in the face. Nice brought a products liability action against the drill’s manufacturer, ZHRI, Inc. A jury awarded $1.4 million in damages to Nice and $100,000 to Nice’s wife for loss of consortium. The district court ** denied ZHRI’s motion for a new trial and motion to remit the damages. ZHRI appeals arguing the district court abused its discretion in admitting expert testimony that ZHRI “should have designed some type of retainer device to keep the bolt from backing out in the event of a failure.” ZHRI contends that without the expert testimony, there was no evidence that ZHRI negligently designed the drilling machine and thus ZHRI was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We disagree. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony. Besides, even without the testimony, evidence showed ZHRI negligently designed the drilling machine at issue and the Niees’ damages were proximately caused by that negligence. ZHRI also argues the district court should have *677 granted its motion for a new trial or remittitur. Given the substantial evidence of the Nices’ permanent injuries, we cannot say the jury’s awards were excessive. We thus affirm the district court.

A true copy.