KEY SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC. v. BRUNER Et Al.
334 Ga. App. 717
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Passenger Penney Bruner died after ejection in a 2003 Jeep Wrangler rollover despite wearing an integrated seatbelt; plaintiff (her husband/estate) sued Key Safety Systems (seatbelt designer/manufacturer) for failure to warn, failure to recall/retrofit, strict products liability, and negligence.
- At trial plaintiff alleged the seatbelt retractor’s ball-and-cup crash sensor and related components allowed slack to form during rollover, causing lap-belt tearing and ejection; plaintiff’s expert (Meyer) demonstrated this via inspection, theory, and a demonstrative video of retractor behavior under rotation.
- Jury returned a verdict awarding over $4.6 million, apportioning 80% fault to Key and 20% to the driver (the decedent’s daughter); Key moved for directed verdict/JNOV and for new trial, which were denied.
- Key appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence to submit the failure-to-warn claim (directed verdict/JNOV error), (2) erroneous admission of the expert’s retractor mechanism testing testimony, and (3) erroneous allowance of the demonstrative video to be shown to the jury.
- The trial court and appellate panel evaluated (a) proximate-cause and adequacy-of-warning issues for the failure-to-warn claim and (b) admissibility of demonstrative models/videos used by experts to explain principles rather than to recreate the specific accident.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to submit failure-to-warn claim to jury | Bruner testified he would have chosen a different, less risky vehicle had he known of ejection risk; decedent’s dying statements and her known seatbelt habits support causation and lack of knowledge of risk | Key argued no proof a warning would have changed purchaser conduct or identified alternative products; alleged insufficiency of proximate cause | Court: Denied directed verdict/JNOV; testimony and circumstantial evidence were sufficient for jury on adequacy/causation; adequacy is a jury question |
| Whether Key’s duty to warn was superseded by Chrysler’s owner manual warnings or manufacturer rules | Plaintiff argued Key had a duty to warn end users and adequacy/location are jury issues | Key argued Chrysler’s manual absolved Key or that Chrysler would have prevented additional warnings | Court: Issue not preserved at trial; in any event adequacy is a fact question for jury and Key’s duty is determined as a matter of law, not Chrysler rules |
| Admissibility of expert’s demonstrative retractor tests and video | Meyer used tests/video as demonstrative aids to explain mechanical principles of the retractor and how slack could form; he acknowledged it was not a precise recreation | Key argued the video/test misled jury because it did not reproduce exact accident variables (rotation rate, angle) and should be excluded as unreliable | Court: Admissible as demonstrative model; trial court acted within discretion; potential inaccuracies were addressed in testimony and cross-examination; video not admitted as substantive evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson Foods Corp. v. Turner, 218 Ga. App. 74 (Ga. Ct. App.) (standard for directed verdict and that adequacy of warnings/proximate cause are jury questions)
- Camden Oil Co. v. Jackson, 270 Ga. App. 837 (Ga. Ct. App.) (adequacy of warning and communication is for the jury)
- J. B. Hunt Transp., Inc. v. Brown, 236 Ga. App. 634 (Ga. Ct. App.) (discretion to admit demonstrative exhibits; may be misleading but reviewed for abuse)
- Cottrell, Inc. v. Williams, 266 Ga. App. 357 (Ga. Ct. App.) (use of videotape by expert for demonstrative purposes is generally permissible)
- Thornton v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 22 F.3d 284 (11th Cir.) (adequacy of warnings and efforts to communicate are jury questions)