52 So. 3d 31
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2010Background
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. appealed a multi-million dollar product liability verdict after the death of plaintiff’s son in a 2000 Nativa rollover.
- Plaintiff alleged design defects in the front passenger seatbelt energy-management loop and the seat back.
- The trial court ordered in limine restrictions on statistical and demonstrative evidence, and a spit-test demonstration was excluded.
- During trial, jurors inspected two Montero exemplars; coins in the seat mechanisms caused one seat’s recline failure.
- Mitsubishi sought mistrial over court remarks about a “defect” during the exemplars, which the court cured with a instruction.
- The appellate court ultimately affirmed the verdict after comprehensive review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard for review of mistrial ruling | Mitsubishi seeks de novo review on mistrial issue | Abuse of discretion governs mistrial decision | Abuse of discretion standard applied |
| Effect of trial court’s exclusion of statistical demonstratives | Exclusion prejudicially harmed Mitsubishi’s case | Exclusions were proper under relevance and prejudice | No reversible error; court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether demonstrative evidence was properly limited | Demonstratives were essential to explain theory | Demonstratives were highly prejudicial | Balanced properly under 90.403; no abuse of discretion |
| Substantial similarity doctrine applicability to demonstratives | Doctrine should govern to require similarity | Doctrine not applicable; focus on relevance/prejudice | Doctrine not controlling; court correctly weighed relevance and prejudice |
| Impact of judge’s remarks on evidence and verdict | Remarks improperly commented on evidence | Remedied by curative instruction; no mistrial | No abuse; curative instruction adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Trees ex rel. Trees v. K-Mart Corp., 467 So.2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (balancing probative value against prejudice; deference to trial court favors affirmance)
- Tran v. Toyota Motor Corp., 420 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2005) (substantial similarity not applicable to dissimilar demonstratives)
- Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537 (Fla.1999) (abuse of discretion standard for mistrial)
- Baker v. State, 578 So.2d 37 (Fla.4th DCA 1991) (inadvertent comments generally not mistrial grounds)
- Harris v. State, 843 So.2d 856 (Fla.2003) (demonstrative evidence admissibility and foundation)