513 F. App'x 847
11th Cir.2013Background
- Sands sued Kawasaki in a maritime products liability action for injuries from a 2003 Kawasaki Ultra 150 jet ski; trial in Savannah, GA; Sands prevailed on design defect and received $3M, but judgment reduced to $1.5M due to 50% fault.
- The 2006 Bahamas accident occurred when Pinder accelerated the jet ski without Sands holding on, causing Sands to fall and suffer severe internal injuries.
- Sands’ expert Burleson offered a rotatable seat back as a reasonable alternative design; Kawasaki sought to exclude, but the court allowed partial admission.
- Trial in 2011 featured Burleson’s testimony and Kawasaki’s Taylor; Sands won on design defect, Kawasaki won on failure to warn; damages included $3M for medical expenses.
- Post-trial, Kawasaki sought Rule 50 JMOL and a new trial on numerous grounds; Sands sought a new trial on damages; motions were denied.
- Kawasaki and Sands appealed, challenging Daubert gatekeeping, evidentiary rulings, verdict form, venue, and damages remittitur; the district court’s rulings were largely upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Daubert gatekeeping for Burleson’s seat-back opinion | Burleson’s testing supported reliability | Testing was insufficient under Daubert | Admissible; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Admission of MADYMO Exhibit 72 | Exhibit 72 would illustrate consequences of Burleson’s design | Exhibit was prejudicial without testing | No reversible error; discretion to exclude; no substantial prejudice |
| Admission of 2010 sculpted-seat photo | Photo showed feasibility of alternative design | Photo misled jury about safety impact | No reversible error; curative instruction adequate |
| Failure to include Pinder on verdict form | Edmonds joint-and-several liability allows inclusion | McDermott proportionate share applies if there’s a settlement; no settlement here | Correct to exclude Pinder; Edmonds governs joint liability in admiralty |
| Damages for pain and suffering; remittitur/weight of the evidence | Zero pain-and-suffering award despite liability | Evidence supported no award for pain and suffering given defense theories | Remittitur not warranted; Coralluzzo law on weight-of-evidence applies; no new trial on damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 443 U.S. 256 (U.S. 1979) (joint liability rule in admiralty for indivisible injuries)
- McDermott, Inc. v. AmClyde, 511 U.S. 202 (U.S. 1994) (proportionate share approach applies after settlement; preserves Edmonds)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (gatekeeping for expert testimony (Rule 702))
- United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2005) (Daubert-type reliability inquiry; en banc opinion cited for gatekeeping)
- Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co., 513 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing closing-argument errors with curative instructions)
- Coralluzzo v. Education Management Corp., 86 F.3d 185 (11th Cir. 1996) (insufficient objection to verdict inconsistency bars new-trial claim for damages)
- Mason v. Ford Motor Co., 307 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2002) (conflict on failure to object to inconsistent verdicts under general verdicts)
- Johansen v. Combustion Eng’g, Inc., 170 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 1999) (Seventh Amendment remittitur option; not reached here)