70 So. 3d 223
Miss. Ct. App.2011Background
- Randy Coleman was severely burned and died 28 days later after a 1999 Ford F-150 caught fire following a head-on crash.
- Coleman sued Ford for wrongful death alleging a defective fuel line design and insufficient shielding; Ford argued there was no defect.
- A jury found the F-150 not defective; Ford presented a comparative fault defense based on the other driver's and Randy's conduct.
- Evidence showed Randy's blood-alcohol content was 0.23% at the time of the crash; Ford used this to support fault arguments.
- Questions centered on crashworthiness evidence, admissibility of BAC data, and whether various trial rulings biased the jury.
- The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the trial court’s determinations on the issues were correct and the verdict proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of comparative fault in crashworthiness case | Coleman argues comparitive fault should be limited to non-crashworthiness claims | Ford argues fault apportionment is available in crashworthiness cases | Issue meritless; apportionment permitted in crashworthiness cases. |
| Admission of BAC tests and physician-patient privilege | BAC results were irrelevant and privileged, thus improper | BAC evidence is relevant to fault; privilege waived by putting condition at issue | Issue meritless; privilege waived; BAC admissible to show fault. |
| Voir dire challenges for cause regarding F-150 owners | Jurors with F-150 ownership biased; trial court should remove | Trial court properly assessed impartiality; no abuse of discretion | Issue without merit; no abuse of discretion in denial of challenges. |
| Admission of Ford fire-origin expert testimony | Newell's testimony insufficiently certain, speculative | Testimony rests on reliable methods; helpful to jury | Issue without merit; expert testimony properly admitted. |
| Note-taking instruction correctness | Preliminary note-taking instruction not precise; reversible error possible | Variances from form instruction did not prejudice; not reversible error | Issue without merit; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Hunter v. Gen. Motors Corp., 729 So. 2d 1264 (Miss. 1999) (contributory fault defense in crashworthiness cases)
- Sessums ex rel. Sessums v. McFall, 551 So. 2d 178 (Miss. 1989) (physician-patient privilege waiver scope when tied to treatment)
- Mississippi Transp. Comm'n v. McLemore, 863 So.2d 31 (Miss. 2003) (Daubert-style standard for expert testimony)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (standard for admissibility of expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (applying Daubert to all expert testimony)