Karen Pavoni v. Chrysler Group
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10173
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Feb 27, 2011: Rose (75) and Roy Coats (83) found dead in their garage; Rose pinned between driver door and garage frame and suffocated; Roy found under front driver-side tire and had cardiovascular death.
- Plaintiffs (three children) allege a "false park" defect in the 2008 Chrysler Grand Caravan automatic transmission caused the vehicle to self-shift from park into reverse, producing the fatal injuries.
- Plaintiffs submitted expert Gerald Rosenbluth (automobile defect investigator) who tested the vehicle, reported a false-park condition, and opined it likely caused the accident; they also presented biomechanical expert Dr. Carly Ward attributing both deaths to the shift into reverse.
- Chrysler moved for summary judgment before close of discovery; district court granted summary judgment, finding Plaintiffs’ evidence insufficient to establish causation.
- Ninth Circuit reversed, holding genuine issues of material fact exist on defect and causation and that the district court wrongly discounted Plaintiffs’ expert evidence and circumstantial proof of causation; remanded for trial and vacated costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of a design/"false park" defect | Rosenbluth’s testing and NHTSA history show false-park defect in Chrysler vehicles | NHTSA earlier closed investigation and Chrysler contends no defect established | Genuine issue of material fact exists; jury may find a defect |
| Causation between defect and deaths | Expert testimony (Rosenbluth, Ward) and circumstantial evidence show vehicle shifted to reverse causing deaths | No direct eyewitness or definitive proof linking shift to deaths; district court found evidence insufficient | Causation is for the jury; circumstantial and expert evidence can suffice to create triable issue |
| Admissibility/weight of biomechanical expert (Dr. Ward) | Ward’s analysis corroborates Rosenbluth and strengthens causation proof | District court minimized Ward’s report as insufficient to change disposition | Ninth Circuit held Ward’s report materially supports Plaintiffs and was wrongly discounted |
| Summary judgment standard application | Plaintiffs say evidence viewed in light most favorable to them creates genuine disputes | Chrysler argues undisputed facts do not permit reasonable jury to find causation | Court reversed summary judgment, finding district court misapplied law and factual view required on summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Pannu v. Land Rover N. Am., Inc., 191 Cal. App. 4th 1298 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (manufacturer strictly liable for defective product causing foreseeable use injury)
- Greenman v. Yuba Power Prods., Inc., 59 Cal. 2d 57 (Cal. 1963) (foundation for strict products liability in California)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard and viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (what constitutes a genuine issue of material fact)
- Hinckley v. La Mesa R.V. Ctr., Inc., 205 Cal. Rptr. 22 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (expert testimony can establish product malfunction and causation)
- Grinnell v. Charles Pfizer & Co., 79 Cal. Rptr. 369 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969) (circumstantial evidence and expert testimony may prove defect and causation)
- Dimond v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 134 Cal. Rptr. 895 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976) (proof by circumstantial evidence acceptable in products cases)
- Thai v. Stang, 263 Cal. Rptr. 202 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (causation is a jury question unless absence of causality is indisputable)