Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v. Roth
252 P.3d 649
Nev.2011Background
- Roth, an injured passenger, obtained $5.9 million against Stapleton but did not prevail against BMW on crashworthiness.
- District court allowed BMW to present seatbelt nonuse evidence under a limiting instruction tied to Nevada seatbelt statute NRS 484D.495(4).
- Limiting instruction stated seatbelt evidence could be used only to evaluate defect claims against BMW, not for other purposes.
- BMW argued seatbelt nonuse was relevant to causation/defect defenses; Roth contended the statute barred such use.
- Following trial, Roth moved for a new trial alleging BMW misconduct in voir dire, opening, and closing arguments violating the in limine order; the district court granted the motion as to both BMW and Stapleton and sanctioned fees.
- The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the new-trial order, holding that contempraneous objections and clear, specific limitations are required to find misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mere in limine limits suffice for misconduct. | Roth | BMW | Order ambiguous; not sufficient to find misconduct |
| Whether contemporaneous objection is required to preserve misconduct | Roth | BMW | Contemporaneous objection required to preserve misconduct claim |
| Whether BMW's opening/closing seatbelt remarks violated the order in limine and caused prejudice | Roth | BMW | No plain error; opening remarks not proven as misconduct due to unclear order |
| Whether the district court correctly upheld a new trial based on alleged misconduct | Roth | BMW | Reversed; new trial order not warranted; fees reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lioce v. Cohen, 124 Nev. 1 (Nev. 2008) (establishes standards for attorney misconduct and new trials)
- Richmond v. State, 118 Nev. 924 (Nev. 2002) (motion in limine preserves error when ruling definitive)
- Wilson v. Vermont Castings, Inc., 170 F.3d 391 (3d Cir. 1999) (contemporaneous objection required to preserve in limine violation)
- United States Aviation Underwriters, 896 F.2d 949 (5th Cir. 1990) (contemporaneous objection required to preserve error for in limine violations)
- Grosjean v. Imperial Palace, 212 P.3d 1068 (Nev. 2009) (plain-error standard for misconduct in seeking new trial)