Musick v. Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc.
847 F. Supp. 2d 887
W.D. Va.2012Background
- Samantha Musick, age 5, was injured in a 2009 Windstar rear-end collision while in a Dorel Commuter High Back Booster (HBB).
- Plaintiff alleged the HBB was defectively designed and lacked padding/side wings which would have prevented injury.
- Jury found the HBB not defective; plaintiff moved for a new trial on grounds of misconduct, weight of the evidence, and instruction errors.
- Pre-trial discovery involved sanctions for failure to disclose PFP-related documents; sanctions limited evidence about foam in wings.
- Some evidence showed the HBB design had no head foam, despite a 1997 design with head foam; Dorel argued FMVSS 213 compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| New trial on grounds of misconduct | Musick argues Dorel fabricated testimony and violated sanctions. | Glover’s testimony concerned a non-safety SMART project; sanctions already addressed. | No new trial for misconduct. |
| Verdict contrary to weight of the evidence | Weight favors defect due to lack of side wings and padding. | FMVSS 213 compliance and expert testimony supported no defect. | Not contrary to weight of the evidence. |
| Jury instructions adequacy | Instructions misstate duty and risk/utility considerations. | Instructions properly stated law and avoided prejudice. | Instructions upheld. |
| Discovery sanctions impact on trial | Failure to disclose harmed plaintiff’s ability to present case. | Sanctions imposed; disclosures eventually provided; no prejudicial impact. | Sanctions proper; no basis for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dreisonstok v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 489 F.2d 1066 (4th Cir.1974) (duty to adopt safer design balanced with cost/feasibility)
- Hardin v. Ski Venture, Inc., 50 F.3d 1291 (4th Cir.1995) (judge's discretion in jury instructions)
- Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Gamble, 256 Va. 144 (Va. 1998) (elements of warranty and negligence align in product liability)
- Logan v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 216 Va. 425 (Va. 1975) (defect standard under Virginia law)
- Noel v. Artson, 641 F.3d 580 (4th Cir.2011) (standard for evaluating challenged jury instructions)
- Atlas Food Sys. & Servs., Inc. v. Crane Nat’l Vendors, Inc., 99 F.3d 587 (4th Cir.1996) (tests for whether verdict is against the weight of the evidence)