Incarnacion Speaks v. Mazda Motor Corp.
701 F. App'x 663
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Speaks sued Mazda under Montana strict products liability after injuries she sustained while using the car's passive shoulder-belt restraint system; case tried to a jury and verdict favored Mazda.
- At summary judgment the district court dismissed Mazda’s misuse affirmative defense, concluding Mazda foresaw the belt being routed under the arm.
- At trial Mazda was allowed to present substantial evidence (including expert testimony) suggesting Speaks routed the shoulder belt under her arm and that such misuse caused her injuries.
- The district court, however, excluded Speaks from presenting foreseeability-related evidence and refused an instruction explaining that foreseeable misuse is not a defense under Montana law.
- The district court gave a “mere fact of the accident” instruction; Speaks challenged that instruction on appeal.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded: it found prejudicial instructional and evidentiary errors concerning foreseeable misuse and related jury instructions, but upheld the mere-accident instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury should be instructed that foreseeable misuse is not a defense to strict products liability | Speaks: Court erred by not instructing jury that foreseeable routing of belt under arm is not misuse or a defense | Mazda: Risk of overemphasizing misuse/negligence; misuse evidence was admissible to contest causation | Reversed: district court abused discretion by omitting instruction clarifying foreseeable misuse is not a defense; prejudice presumed absent Mazda showing otherwise |
| Whether district court erred in precluding foreseeability-related evidence and refusing Speaks’ proposed instruction (Jury Instr. 46) | Speaks: Foreseeability evidence is admissible and instruction required under Montana law to inform jury manufacturer must design for foreseeable uses | Mazda: Foreseeability belongs in negligence or misuse-defense context; exclusion appropriate | Reversed: exclusion improper; Montana law supports foreseeability evidence and the proposed instruction; error prejudicial |
| Whether “mere fact of the accident” instruction was improper in strict liability case | Speaks: Such an instruction is incompatible with strict liability in some contexts (citing concurrence in Cameron) | Mazda: Montana precedent permits limiting instruction to require proof of defect, causation, and damages | Affirmed: Instruction consistent with Montana law; not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether admission of Mazda’s misuse evidence was improper | Speaks: Admission allowed Mazda to focus jury on misuse after misuse defense was dismissed | Mazda: Entitled to introduce evidence to challenge causation | District court did not err in admitting misuse evidence; error was failing to give clarifying instruction and excluding foreseeability rebuttal |
Key Cases Cited
- Duran v. City of Maywood, 221 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir.) (instruction must fairly and adequately cover issues presented)
- Gantt v. City of Los Angeles, 717 F.3d 702 (9th Cir.) (presumption of prejudice for civil trial instructional errors; defendant must show harmlessness)
- Kenser v. Premium Nail Concepts, Inc., 338 P.3d 37 (Mont.) (foreseeable use does not constitute misuse; foreseeability must be instructed in strict-liability cases)
- McJunkin v. Kaufman & Broad Home Systems, Inc., 748 P.2d 910 (Mont.) (defect test includes whether product was unreasonably unsuitable for intended or foreseeable purpose)
- Lutz v. National Crane Corp., 884 P.2d 455 (Mont.) (manufacturer must reasonably foresee misuse and design to guard against it)
- Brown v. North Am. Mfg. Co., 576 P.2d 711 (Mont.) (mere fact of accident instruction may be proper to require proof of defect, causation, and damage)