Henry Sims, Jr. v. Kia Motors of America, I
839 F.3d 393
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Henry Sims, Sr. died when a 2010 Kia Soul’s fuel tank was ruptured by the base (flange) of a yield sign after a multi-impact crash in Tarrant County, Texas; gasoline leaked and the car ignited, trapping rear-seat passengers.
- Plaintiffs (Sims’s children and grandchild) sued Kia Motors of America (KMA) and Kia Motors Corporation (KMC) alleging defective fuel-tank design and asserting safer alternative designs (tank shield and straps) would have prevented rupture or reduced risk.
- Plaintiffs retained two experts: Michael McCort (accident reconstruction; asserted the tank displaced downward prior to impact) and Jerry Wallingford (opined on safer alternative designs and causation).
- Case was transferred to the Northern District of Texas; the district court applied Texas substantive law (choice-of-law analysis rejecting California law predominance) and excluded parts of McCort’s testimony and all of Wallingford’s as unreliable under Daubert/Rule 702.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants because, under Texas law, plaintiffs lacked admissible expert proof of a safer alternative and of causation. Plaintiffs appealed; Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law (Texas v. California) | Calif. law should apply because Kia is a California defendant and does business there | Texas law applies because the car was sold, the accident occurred, and parties/witnesses are in Texas | Texas law applies (governmental-interest approach; place of the wrong is Texas) |
| Admissibility of McCort’s downward-displacement theory | McCort used differential diagnosis and cited internal Kia testing and physical observations to support downward displacement of the tank | McCort’s theory lacks reliable "ruling in" evidence and relies on speculation and unsubstantiated testing | District court properly excluded McCort’s downward-displacement opinion under Rule 702/Daubert |
| Admissibility of Wallingford’s alternative-design opinions (straps and shield) | Wallingford showed technical and risk-utility feasibility; shields/straps would have prevented rupture or raised tank clearance | Wallingford’s strap theory depends on McCort’s excluded theory; shield theory lacks reliable causation, testing, and economic feasibility evidence | Court properly excluded testimony about straps (dependent on McCort); exclusion of shield testimony also not an abuse of discretion given weak causation and feasibility support |
| Grant of summary judgment | Plaintiffs: admissible expert evidence exists to create genuine issues on safer alternative and causation | Defendants: without experts plaintiffs cannot prove essential elements under Texas law | Summary judgment affirmed because plaintiffs lacked admissible expert proof of safer alternative and causation under Texas law |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (establishes reliability inquiry for expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Daubert reliability framework applies to all expert technical testimony)
- Pipitone v. Biomatrix, Inc., 288 F.3d 239 (5th Cir.) (differential diagnosis can satisfy Daubert when expert also "rules in" cause with reliable support)
- General Motors Corp. v. Sanchez, 997 S.W.2d 584 (Tex.) (expert must use engineering principles/testing to show alternative design would reduce risk)
- Casey v. Toyota Motor Eng’g & Mfg. N. Am., Inc., 770 F.3d 322 (5th Cir.) (Texas expects testing/engineering support for alternative-design causation though prototype not always required)
- Genie Indus., Inc. v. Matak, 462 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2015) (safer-alternative need not be built/tested; jury-sufficiency standard analyzed)
- Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 137 P.3d 914 (Cal. 2006) (California’s governmental-interest choice-of-law approach)