Mass Tort Defense : Mass Tort Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Sean P. Wajert : Dechert Law Firm : Products Liability, Class Actions, Pharmaceutical Litigation

The Indiana Supreme Court recently answered a certified question from the federal court asking whether, in a crash-worthiness case alleging enhanced injuries under the Indiana Products Liability Act, the finder of fact shall apportion fault to the person suffering physical harm when that alleged fault relates to the cause of the underlying accident. Green v. Ford Motor Co., No. 94S00-1007-CQ-348 (Ind. 2/8/11).  The court answered in the affirmative, laying out a two-step procedure for the consideration of a plaintiff's fault in enhanced-injury cases.

The case was a damages action by Nicholas Green against Ford Motor Company under the Indiana Product Liability Act, asserting that Green's 1999 Ford Explorer vehicle was defective and unreasonably dangerous, and that Ford was negligent in its design of the vehicle's restraint system. Back in 2006, while Green was driving the vehicle, it left the road, struck a guardrail, rolled down an embankment, and came to rest upside down in a ditch. Green sustained severe injuries. He sued, claiming that his injuries were substantially enhanced because of the alleged defects in the vehicle's restraint system. In the federal case, Green moved in limine to exclude any evidence of his alleged contributory negligence on the grounds that any conduct by him in causing the vehicle to leave the road and strike the guardrail was not relevant to whether Ford's negligent design of the restraint system caused him to suffer greater injuries he would not have otherwise suffered.

So in this "crash-worthiness" claim for the "enhanced injuries" suffered, Green sought to exclude evidence at trial regarding his own alleged initial negligence resulting in the vehicle leaving the road and striking the guardrail. Ford asserted that Green's product liability lawsuit is subject to Indiana's statutory comparative fault principles, which require the jury to consider the fault of Green in causing or contributing to the physical harm he suffered.

The "Crash-worthiness Doctrine" has been identified in numerous cases, e.g., Larsen v. General Motors Corp., 391 F.2d 495, 502 (8th Cir. 1968).  The notion is that, in light of the statistical inevitability of collisions, a vehicle manufacturer must use reasonable care in designing a vehicle to avoid subjecting the user to an unreasonable risk of injury in the event of a collision. The reasoning is that the manufacturer should be liable for that portion of the damage or injury caused by the defective design over and above the damage or injury that would have occurred as a result of the impact or collision absent the allegedly defective design.  Thus a normal risk of driving must be accepted by the user, but the policy is not to penalize the user by subjecting him to an unreasonable risk of further injury due to negligence in design.

The court noted that in both the state Product Liability Act and the Comparative Fault Act, the legislature employed expansive language to describe the breadth of causative conduct that may be considered in determining and allocating fault. Both enactments require consideration of the fault of all persons who caused or contributed to cause the harm. The Comparative Fault Act further specifies that, in comparative fault actions, the "legal requirements of causal relation apply." The state legislature has thus directed that a broad range of potentially causative conduct initially may be considered by the fact-finder, but that the jury may allocate comparative fault only to those actors whose fault was a proximate cause of the claimed injury.

Therefore, in a crash-worthiness case alleging enhanced injuries under the Indiana Product Liability Act, it is the function of the fact-finder to consider and evaluate the conduct of all relevant actors who are alleged to have caused or contributed to cause the harm for which the plaintiff seeks damages. An assertion that a plaintiff is limiting his claim to "enhanced injuries" caused by only the "second collision" does not preclude the fact-finder from considering evidence of all relevant conduct of the plaintiff reasonably alleged to have contributed to cause the ultimate injuries. From that evidence, the jury must then determine whether such conduct satisfies the requirement of proximate cause.  The fact-finder may allocate as comparative fault only such fault that it finds to have been a proximate cause of the claimed injuries. And if the fault of more than one actor is found to have been a proximate cause of the claimed injuries, the fact-finder, in its allocation of comparative fault, may consider the relative degree of proximate causation attributable to each of the responsible actors.

While a jury in a crash-worthiness case may receive evidence of the plaintiff's conduct alleged to have contributed to cause the claimed injuries, the issue of whether such conduct constitutes proximate cause of the injuries for which damages are sought is typically a matter for the jury to determine in its evaluation of comparative fault.  
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Mississippi Supreme Court has vacated a $4.5 million verdict in favor of plaintiffs in a case against defendant Hyundai over a serious car accident. Hyundai Motor America v. Applewhite, No. 2008-CA-01101-SCT (Miss., 2/10/11).

Casino co- workers Dorothy Applewhite, Cecilia Cooper, and Anthony Stewart were traveling in Applewhite's 1993 Hyundai Excel after work.  It is unclear who was driving, but the two women were in the front seats, and Stewart was in the rear seat. A co-worker traveling ahead of them testified that he noticed the car weaving, drifting onto the shoulder, and finally swerving into the northbound lane, where it collided with another vehicle. The Excel separated into two pieces. All three passengers in the Excel died at the scene of the accident. 

Family members of the three decedents sued Hyundai. At trial, the plaintiffs undertook to prove that the Excel was not crashworthy due to alleged defects in both its design and manufacture, including the welds in the vehicle. Plaintiffs offered the testimony of several expert witnesses, including Andrew Webb, an accident reconstructionist.  Webb testified that he had used a computer program to reconstruct the accident and concluded that, had the Excel remained intact, the occupants would have experienced a change in velocity of thirty-five miles per hour. Another expert then testified that at thirty-five miles per hour, it was more likely than not that the occupants would have survived the crash.

The jury awarded the plaintiffs $4.5 million, or $1.5 million for each of three decedents, finding that the automobile at issue was defective in both its design and manufacture.

On appeal, Hyundai argued that it was entitled to a new trial because it was ambushed by changes
to Webb’s opinion. As noted, one of Webb’s main contentions was that, had the Excel remained
intact, the vehicle would have experienced a change in velocity (delta-v) of no more than thirty-five miles per hour. Hyundai deposed Webb before trial, at which time Webb gave a detailed
explanation of his calculations. Months after the deposition, Webb signed an errata sheet concerning his deposition testimony, changing four key variables that he had used to make his calculations. Most notably, Webb changed the angle of the Excel from 22 degrees to 44 degrees and increased the closing speed of the Excel from 68 miles per hour to 78 miles per hour. Despite these dramatic changes, Webb did not alter his ultimate conclusion that the car would have sustained a delta-v of only thirty-five miles per hour had it remained intact.

At trial, Webb testified about the errata sheet, claiming that he had to change several variables because he realized after he had been deposed that he had made some mistakes in his initial analysis. It is undisputed that Webb’s errata sheet was not done to correct errors made by the court reporter or to clarify his testimony. On the sheet itself, Webb listed the reason for the changes simply as “range not asked.”

Hyundai moved to strike Webb’s testimony at trial, alleging that it had never received the errata sheet during discovery and that these changes were a surprise. In response, the plaintiffs argued that the changes were not material because they did not alter Webb’s ultimate conclusion. The plaintiffs also produced a letter trying to demonstrate that they had forwarded Webb’s errata sheet to the defendant. The trial court heard extensive arguments on the issue and denied the defendant’s motion.

The Supreme Court did not agree.  The discovery rules impose a duty on the parties to amend a prior response when the party knows that the response, though correct when made, is no longer
true and the circumstances are such that a failure to amend the response is in substance a
knowing concealment. The failure seasonably to supplement or amend a response is a discovery violation that may warrant sanctions, including exclusion of evidence. Whether the plaintiffs did or did not send the errata sheet was unnecessary and irrelevant to a proper analysis. Even if Hyundai did receive the errata sheet, simply giving the defendant this document did not relieve the plaintiffs of their duties under the rules. The purpose of an errata sheet is to correct scrivener’s errors or provide minor clarification; it is not a means of making material, substantive changes to a witness’s testimony. See e.g., Garcia v. Pueblo Country Club, 399 F.3d 1233, 1242 n.5 (10th Cir. 2002) (“A deposition is not a take home examination.”) If a witness changes his testimony in a manner that conflicts with prior discovery responses, the sponsoring party has a duty under the rules (Rule 26(f) in this state) seasonably and formally to amend or supplement the response -- not try to sneak it through in an errata sheet. This the responsibility of the party sponsoring the witness, not the responsibility of the witness.

The plaintiffs argued that Webb’s changes were not material because they did not alter his opinion that, had the car not separated, the occupants would have experienced a delta-v of only thirty-five miles per hour. The Court did not agree. The changes in Webb’s calculations were material changes because they were essential components of the basis for his opinion. When Hyundai attempted to cross-examine Webb about his calculations, Webb referred to his errata sheet at least seven times to demonstrate that he had corrected his mistakes. It is clear from Webb’s own trial testimony that the figures on the errata sheet were important to his calculations. Moreover, when Hyundai’s experts performed crash testing, they relied on and used the figures given by Webb in his deposition in an attempt to test his opinions and refute his testimony. When Webb changed his calculations, the entire crash test using Webb’s initial calculations lost much of its relevance.  

The Court found that the trial judge abused his discretion by not enforcing the rules, noting "we do
not condone trial by ambush." Hyundai was entitled to full and complete disclosure of the plaintiffs’ expert testimony, and neither these plaintiffs nor any other party litigant may rely on a witness’s notations on a deposition errata sheet as a substitute for formal and timely supplementation. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A federal judge has dismissed a class action against Ford Motor Co. over allegedly defective ignition locks. Richard Smith, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., No. 06-00497 (N.D. Calif. 9/13/10).  The case offers an interesting take on the interplay of express warranties and fraud/failure to disclose claims.

Plaintiffs alleged that Ford unlawfully concealed information concerning the failure rate of the ignition locks in its Focus vehicles. An ignition lock is the vehicle part in which the key is inserted and turned to activate the ignition; its purpose is to start the car. When an ignition lock fails, the driver is prevented from turning the key. Following the launch of the Focus, there was a spike in warranty claims related to the ignition locks. In order to counter the relatively high warranty repair rates, Ford and its ignition lock manufacturer made manufacturing and design changes to the subject ignition locks, which resulted in a substantial decrease in the warranty repair rates. Specifically, from a warranty repair rate of 24.3 % for its 2000 model year Focus vehicles, Ford saw the rate drop to 6.9% for its 2001model year vehicles, then drop again to 3.1% for its 2002 model year vehicles.

In their complaint, plaintiffs asserted state law claims against Ford for, inter alia, Unfair and
Deceptive Acts and Practices in Violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et. seq.; and Unfair, Fraudulent, and Unlawful Practices under the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code sections 17200-17209.

Ford moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had no legal duty to disclose the risk that the subject ignition locks would fail, and could stand on its standard three-year, 36,000 mile warranty.

The district court agreed, granting summary judgment.  The court noted first that  under California law, a manufacturer cannot be found liable under the CLRA for failure to disclose a defect that manifests itself after expiration of the warranty period unless such omission (1) is contrary to an express representation actually made by the defendant, or (2) pertains to a fact the defendant was obligated to disclose.  Plaintiffs argued there was an obligation to disclose "material" risks.  But where, as here, a plaintiff’s claim is predicated on a manufacturer’s failure to inform its customers of a product’s likelihood of failing outside the warranty period, the risk posed by such asserted defect cannot be “merely” the cost of the item's repair.  Rather, for the omission to be material, the failure must pose “safety concerns.”  In other words, under California law, a manufacturer’s duty to consumers is limited to its warranty obligations absent either an affirmative misrepresentation or a safety issue. 

Accordingly, because plaintiffs’ CLRA claim here was not based on any misrepresentation made by Ford, but rather was based on an allegation that Ford had a duty to disclose the risk its ignition locks would fail, plaintiffs’ claim, absent evidence of a safety concern, could not succeed. Plaintiffs argued that the ignition lock issue was a substantial "safety concern" because such locks can (1) prevent drivers from starting their vehicles, and (2) prevent drivers from shutting off their vehicles’ engines -- despite the fact that there were no reports that anyone has ever been injured by the failure of an ignition lock.  Plaintiffs hypothesized drivers getting stranded in unsafe locales. Ford argued that the dangers described by plaintiffs were too speculative to amount to a safety issue giving rise to a duty of disclosure.

The court agreed with Ford, noting “security” concerns are distinguishable from “safety” concerns. The dangers envisioned by plaintiffs were speculative in nature, deriving in each instance from the particular location at which the driver initially had parked the vehicle and/or the driver’s individual circumstances. Plaintiffs offered no evidence that the ignition-lock defect causes engines to shut off unexpectedly or causes individuals to stop their vehicles under dangerous conditions.

Similarly, to the extent plaintiffs’ fraudulent concealment claim was based on Ford’s alleged duty to disclose the risk of failure of the subject ignition locks, Ford was entitled to summary judgment on that claim also as there was no duty to disclose a failure rate, post-warranty, for a non-safety issue.  Again, as plaintiffs have failed to show an affirmative duty to disclose the risk of post-warranty failure of the ignition locks, plaintiffs also had not shown that a reasonable customer could have been deceived; as a matter of law, the only reasonable expectation customers could have had about the subject ignition locks was that they would function for the length of Ford’s express warranty. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The judge overseeing the Toyota unintended acceleration MDL has issued an order permitting expanded discovery. In Re: Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 8:10ML2151 JVS (Order No. 5: Phase I Discovery Plan, July 20, 2010).

Judge Selna (C.D. Calif.) noted that the Phase I Discovery Plan being promulgated was intended solely to educate the parties about foundational issues involved in the litigation, including the identification of the proper parties to this litigation, the identity of relevant third-parties, organizational structure, the identify of relevant witnesses, and identity, nature, and location of relevant documents. The court expects that discovery on foundational issues during Phase I will enable the parties to develop a more narrowly tailored discovery plan for subsequent phases of the litigation and to be more focused, economical and efficient in subsequent phases of discovery. In addition to the foundational information to be provided to plaintiffs by Toyota, Phase I will also provide Toyota the opportunity to obtain foundational, threshold information from plaintiffs, the class representatives, and relevant third-parties.

Phase I Discovery will last for 100 days, and the parties agreed the Phase I discovery plan needs to be coordinated to the extent feasible with related cases pending in state courts.

Under the order, the Toyota Defendants are to produce witnesses pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) to testify concerning the twenty-one issues, including:

• organizational structure,
• the roles and responsibilities of each of the various Toyota companies with respect to the design, manufacture and sale of Toyota vehicles,
• the identity, nature, location and retention of documents related to the design, evaluation, manufacture, and testing of the ETCS system and any modifications or adaptations of the ETCS system for Toyota vehicles,
• the identity of the persons and departments involved in the design, evaluation, testing and manufacture of the ETCS and its components,
• the identity, nature, location and retention of documents related to information Toyotas has received about speed control, surge, and SUA events in Toyota and Lexus vehicles, including specifically warranty records, customer complaints, claims and lawsuits,
• procedures employed for investigating and responding to complaints of unintended acceleration by owners or operations of any Toyota vehicles, and
• the internal decision-making process by the Toyota Defendants about what and when to inform Toyota customers, governmental agencies and the public about SUA events and the identities of the persons and departments involved in that decision-making process and the identity of the persons and departments involved in that process.

The court ruled that during this litigation the parties must endeavor to avoid duplicative depositions or repetitive questions and to avoid deposing any witness more than once on the same subject matter. But it held off on ruling on Toyota’s position that no Toyota witness deposed during Phase I
would be deposed again in subsequent phases of this litigation on the same subject matter, except by agreement of the parties. Plaintiffs did not agree with Toyota’s position.

Plaintiffs are to provide completed Plaintiff Fact Sheets and Class Representative Fact Sheets, including the production of any documents responsive to the fact sheets. Fact Sheet Responses to information requests are deemed interrogatory responses pursuant to FRCP 33 and may be treated as such at time of trial, under the order. Responses have to set forth all information known or reasonably ascertainable to the party and/or their counsel. The parties are obligated to make a reasonable search and diligent inquiry for information or documents responsive to the request.
Fact Sheet Responses to document requests and the production of documents are deemed responses and production under FRCP 34. 

Additionally, the Toyota Defendants shall be permitted to conduct inspections of the subject vehicles.  Plaintiffs and class representatives have to identify whether the subject vehicle exists, and if so, its current location, general condition, and vehicle identification number, if known.  The parties agreed that vehicle inspections would be permitted commencing in Phase I. The protocol for vehicle inspections will apparently be determined on a case-by-case basis. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks