CARL LAWSON VS. K2 SPORTS USA(L-4440-08, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-3909-14T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 24, 2017Background
- Carl Lawson was injured while mountain biking; he flipped over handlebars, landed on his head, and became quadriplegic while wearing a Bell Solar Fusion helmet.
- Plaintiffs alleged the helmet's elongated "teardrop" (aero) design was a design defect under the New Jersey Product Liability Act and sought to prove a reasonable alternative (more rounded helmet).
- Plaintiffs' key expert, Dr. Zafer Termanini, testified that the teardrop shape (1) interferes with completing a somersault, (2) can "dig in" to soft surfaces and constrain head movement, and (3) can impose rotational forces—each increasing risk/severity of cervical injury.
- Trial court denied an adjournment request for the expert (plaintiffs videotaped his testimony), excluded one BHSI article (Square Lines) as not a learned treatise, admitted another BHSI communication (Hurt email) as a learned treatise, and allowed defense testimony that Bell had no prior similar neck-injury claims.
- Jury returned a defense verdict; plaintiffs appealed raising claims about the adjournment denial, evidentiary rulings (learned treatise exclusion, admission of lack-of-claims testimony, refusal to provide Hurt email to jury), counsel closing procedure, and portions of the jury charge/verdict sheet.
- Appellate division affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion or plain error in the trial court's rulings or instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of adjournment for key expert | Denial deprived Lawson of live testimony of key design expert; Rule 4:36-3(c) required accommodation | Trial court reasonably set peremptory date; offered accommodations; plaintiffs could and did present videotaped testimony | No abuse of discretion; videotaped testimony provided jury access to expert evidence |
| Exclusion of BHSI "Square Lines" article as learned treatise | Article was reliable support for expert's opinions and critical to design-defect proof; court should have held Rule 104 hearing | Article lacked author, scholarly credentials, and was produced late; not shown to be a reliable authority | No abuse of discretion; article not shown to be a reliable learned treatise and other BHSI material (Hurt email) was admitted |
| Admission of testimony that Bell had no prior similar cervical-injury claims | Admission was prejudicial because plaintiffs did not introduce prior accident evidence | Evidence of absence of similar accidents is relevant to risk and proper foundation was laid via corporate witness | No abuse of discretion; foundation (VP Parks's role and knowledge) was sufficient and evidence admissible under precedent |
| Jury request for Hurt email/readback | Jury should have been given the Hurt email or its readback since it was relied on by expert | Learned-treatise rule bars admission of the document as an exhibit; reading it to jury would circumvent the rule and be prejudicial | No abuse of discretion; email was not admitted as an exhibit and judge properly declined to provide/read it to jury under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(18) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacober v. St. Peter's Med. Ctr., 128 N.J. 475 (learned-treatise standard; reliable-authority inquiry)
- Ryan v. KDI Sylvan Pools, Inc., 121 N.J. 276 (prior-accident evidence relevance in design-defect cases)
- Schaefer v. Cedar Fair, L.P., 348 N.J. Super. 223 (absence-of-accident evidence admissibility)
- Rocco v. N.J. Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 330 N.J. Super. 320 (standard of review for adjournment denials)