Carla Gleason v. Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems, LLC
2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1203
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- May 9, 2005, a Liberty Public School District school bus collided with a stopped pickup, killing Gleason and severely injuring Yi and Hubbard.
- Parents of the injuries/pdecedents filed a products liability action against Bendix and Thomas Built Buses.
- Trial in Clay County, Missouri resulted in a jury verdict for Bendix/Thomas Built; appellants sought a new trial on multiple grounds.
- Appellants alleged juror nondisclosure, withdrawal of expert witnesses, improper closing argument, exclusion of experimental brake testing, and admissibility of Edwards’ testimony.
- Appellants hired investigators post-trial to interview jurors; some juror complaints led to heightened scrutiny of juror conduct and disclosures.
- Issue on appeal is whether trial court abused its discretion on the five challenged rulings (new trial, expert withdrawal, adverse inference, Bridgeman testing, Edwards testimony).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror nondisclosure during voir dire | C.D. intentionally nondisclosed brake expertise and beliefs about judiciary | Trial court properly found no intentional nondisclosure | Denial of new trial affirmed |
| Foundation for Reust and Irwin’s opinions | Deponents’ opinions admissible; deposition foundation existed | Insufficient foundation; waiver due to objection timing | Admission of Reust/Irwin opinions affirmed |
| Adverse inference in closing | Defendants could comment on not calling Reust/Irwin | Court properly permitted brief adverse inference; sustained other objections | No reversible error; ruling upheld |
| Bridgeman experimental brake testing | Testing under substantially similar conditions; admissible | Not substantially similar; excluded | Exclusion upheld; no abuse of discretion |
| Edwards’ testimony on standard of care/causation | Edwards qualified to opine on driver performance and pedal misapplication | Opinion beyond Edwards’ expertise; improper causation evidence | Admission sustained; no error on standard-of-care/causation testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. McCullough, 306 S.W.3d 551 (Mo. banc 2010) (standard for reviewing juror nondisclosure rulings; abuse of discretion threshold)
- Bell v. Sabates, 90 S.W.3d 116 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) (intentional vs. unintentional nondisclosure; trial court discretion)
- Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 410 S.W.3d 623 (Mo. banc 2013) (voir dire and disclosure principles; disclosure adequacy)
- March v. Midwest St. Louis, L.L.C., 417 S.W.3d 248 (Mo. banc 2014) (evidentiary standard; light in favorable view of trial court ruling)
- Kivland v. Columbia Orthopaedic Group, LLP, 331 S.W.3d 299 (Mo. banc 2011) (expert testimony admissibility under §490.065; reliance foundations)
- Seabaugh v. Milde Farms, Inc., 816 S.W.2d 202 (Mo. banc 1991) (timeliness of objections; preservation of error in expert deposition)
- Richardson v. State Highway & Transportation Comm., 863 S.W.2d 876 (Mo. banc 1993) (analysis of computer simulation/experimental evidence admissibility)
- Lozano v. Signature Health Serv., Inc., 421 S.W.3d 856 (Mo. banc 2014) (limits on admissibility of disputed experimental evidence; abuse of discretion standard)