Lynn ex rel. Lynn v. Yamaha Golf-Car Co.
894 F. Supp. 2d 606
W.D. Pa.2012Background
- Mercedez Lynn, age 13, was a passenger in a 1999 Yamaha G16A golf car when she was ejected during a left-hand U-turn and sustained severe head injuries.
- The golf car was previously owned by Mercedez’ father and purchased secondhand; the Owner’s Manual did not accompany the vehicle at purchase.
- Jackie Johnston, also 13, was driving the golf car at the time of the accident and testified that Mercedez was seated with feet on the floor prior to the turn.
- Plaintiffs retained Kristopher Seluga, M.S., P.E., a biomechanical engineer, to analyze causation and design defects; Seluga prepared computer simulations of the accident.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds; Yamaha moved for summary judgment and to preclude Seluga’s Rule 702 testimony; the court denied the Daubert motion to preclude and partially granted/denied summary judgment.
- The court applied Restatement (Third) of Torts to analyze design defect and concluded genuine issues of material fact exist as to causation and feasibility of reasonable alternative designs, while granting summary judgment on failure-to-warn claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apply Restatement (Third) to design defect analysis | Seluga’s testimony supports a reasonable alternative design and foreseeability of ejection. | Third is unsettled under Pennsylvania law; focus should be on intended use. | Restatement (Third) applies; design defect questions proceed to trial. |
| Causation – did hip restraint cause the ejection | Seluga’s simulations show the hip restraint acted as a fulcrum causing ejection. | No eyewitness confirms the hip restraint was engaged; causation uncertain. | Genuine issue of material fact on causation; trial needed. |
| Adequacy of warnings and post-sale duty to warn | Warnings were inadequate and post-sale warning duty may apply. | Warnings present; no evidence link to injury; third-party duty unclear. | Summary judgment granted on failure-to-warn claims; post-sale warning claim dismissed. |
| Admissibility of Seluga under Daubert Rule 702 | ATB/GEBOD simulations are reliable; data inputs are supportable. | Data inputs (positional/speed estimates) contested; reliability questioned. | Rule 702 testimony as to Seluga is admitted; data inputs questions to be weighed on cross-examination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Covell v. Bell Sports, Inc., 651 F.3d 357 (3d Cir.2011) (predicts Restatement (Third) governs Pennsylvania design defect claims in diversity cases)
- Berrier v. Simplicity Mfg., Inc., 563 F.3d 38 (3d Cir.2009) (adopts Restatement (Third) approach for bystander/unintended users in PA)
- Beard v. Johnson and Johnson, Inc., 41 A.3d 823 (Pa.2012) (Pa. Supreme Court recognizes disrepair in strict-liability design law; informs third/restatement approach)
- Phillips v. Cricket Lighters, 841 A.2d 1000 (Pa.2003) (discusses intended user/use and Restatement (Second) framework; informs analysis of foreseeability)
- Schmidt v. Boardman Co., 11 A.3d 924 (Pa.2011) (acknowledges foundational issues in PA products liability law under Restatement (Second))