Bullock v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
107 F. Supp. 3d 1305
M.D. Ga.2015Background
- Plaintiffs Kevin and Cheryl Bullock sue Volkswagen Group of America, Volkswagen AG, and Honeywell over a 2004 Passat's alleged turbocharger defect causing unintended acceleration and crash injuries to Mrs. Bullock and loss of consortium for Mr. Bullock.
- Plaintiffs rely on two experts: Lee Hurley, a mechanical automotive expert with 40+ years of experience, and Mark Hood, a materials engineer.
- The incident occurred on September 5, 2011 on Georgia Highway 1, where Mrs. Bullock alleges the Passat accelerated uncontrollably, crashed, and injured her.
- The court denied Defendants’ Daubert motions to exclude Hurley and Hood, finding them qualified and their methods sufficiently reliable for jury consideration.
- Hurley examined the vehicle, inspected evidence, tested an exemplar Passat, and opined that oil leaked from the turbocharger seal causing unintended acceleration.
- Hood conducted independent inspection and analysis, identifying a single piston-ring design and wear as causes of oil leakage and concluding the turbocharger was defective with safer alternative designs available.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Daubert admissibility of Hurley | Hurley is qualified; experience-based methods are reliable with case-specific grounding. | Hurley relies on ipse dixit and lacks reliable methodology. | Hurley admitted; testimony deemed reliable and relevant. |
| Daubert admissibility of Hood | Hood offers independent, specialized metallurgical analysis with credible methodology. | Hood merely parrots Hurley; unreliable. | Hood admitted; independent failure analysis found reliable. |
| Design defect claim sufficiency | Evidence supports risk–utility balancing and feasible safer design; jury should decide. | No explicit design-defect labeling; no sufficient feasible alternative design evidence. | Jury could find a design defect if experts’ opinions are believed. |
| Failure to warn claim viability | Defendants knew risks and failed to provide adequate warning; jury can assess. | Warning adequacy is not conclusively shown; lack of expert warning witness. | Remains viable; no summary judgment on failure to warn. |
| Radtke epilepsy testimony | Radtke’s epilepsy-based causation testimony is relevant and helpful to the jury. | No diagnostic testing or patient contact undermines reliability. | Radtke's testimony admitted; causation-focused relevance allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ala. Power Co., 730 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2013) (gatekeeping relies on reliability, not merely exclusionary tests)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (S. Ct. 1993) (admissibility of expert testimony depends on reliability)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (S. Ct. 1999) (flexible gatekeeping applicable to all expert testimony)
- Adams v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 760 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2014) (factors are non-exhaustive; case-specific reliability needed)
- United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2004) (explain how experience leads to conclusions; reliability required)
- Dean v. Toyota Indus. Equip. Mfg., Inc., 246 Ga. App. 255 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000) (design defect analysis balancing risk and utility)
- Camden Oil Co. v. Jackson, 270 Ga. App. 837 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004) (duty to warn considerations in product liability)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (S. Ct. 1997) (ipse dixit concerns in expert testimony; not controlling evidence)