11 F. Supp. 3d 884
N.D. Ind.2014Background
- Single-vehicle 2007 Massachusetts crash; icy road conditions; Barbara Piltch drove, Howard passenger; airbags did not deploy and injuries allegedly worsened as a result.
- Piltches allege air bag defect under IPLA theories of negligence, strict liability, and crashworthiness; proximate cause required in all theories.
- Ford moves for summary judgment arguing no causation evidence without expert testimony; no disputed facts support a defect claim.
- Vehicle later sold to James O’Boyle in 2009; post-accident reprogramming/degradation of diagnostic data by O’Boyle’s mechanic raises issues about evidence preservation.
- Piltches concede certain undisputed facts for the motion; no expert witness designated to testify on accident circumstances or air bag deployment.
- Court analyzes whether circumstantial evidence suffices to prove proximate causation in crash-worthiness under IPLA and related Indiana law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circumstantial evidence can prove proximate cause without experts. | Piltches rely on circumstantial evidence and res ipsa-like reasoning. | Ford requires expert causation testimony; lacking such, no trial issue. | Yes, but not here; insufficient circumstantial evidence to overcome summary judgment. |
| Whether res ipsa loquitur can support IPLA claims. | Whitted-like inference available from circumstantial evidence. | Res ipsa not established; rare instances required expert or additional evidence. | Not proven; res ipsa not applicable to create a trial issue. |
| Whether pharmacist-like cases (Cansler) justify denying summary judgment without expert testimony. | Circumstantial evidence mirrors Cansler and supports causation. | Cansler’s circumstances distinguishable; no skilled witness post-accident. | Distinguishable; insufficient to defeat summary judgment. |
| Whether the Piltches can rely on the owner’s manual and non-expert testimony to defeat summary judgment. | Manual and lay testimony show air bags should deploy in a frontal crash. | Without expert causation testimony, circumstantial evidence is insufficient. | Insufficient under IPLA; summary judgment granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Owens v. Ford Motor Co., 297 F.Supp.2d 1099 (S.D.Ind.2003) (necessity of expert testimony to prove air bag nondeployment)
- Cansler v. Mills, 765 N.E.2d 698 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (skilled witness can create triable issue on deployment with circumstantial evidence)
- Silvestri v. Gen. Motors Corp., 210 F.3d 240 (4th Cir.2000) (circumstantial evidence can raise fact question on deployment)
- Whitted v. General Motors Corp., 58 F.3d 1200 (7th Cir.1995) (res ipsa may apply, but requires evidence of control and other factors; rare)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Rushford, 868 N.E.2d 806 (Ind.2007) (proximate cause in IPLA; crashworthiness theories)
- U-Haul Int’l., Inc. v. Nulls Machine and Mfg. Shop, 736 N.E.2d 271 (Ind.App.2000) (expert testimony generally required for causation in product cases)