Speaks v. Mazda Motor Corp.
118 F. Supp. 3d 1212
D. Mont.2015Background
- Plaintiff Incarnacion Speaks (passenger, ~4'9", 110 lbs) was seriously injured in a 2011 collision while wearing the 1994 Mazda Protegé's lap belt and automatic shoulder belt; she alleges the passive (automatic) seat‑belt design is defectively executed for small-stature occupants.
- Case now proceeds solely on strict products liability under Montana law in federal diversity court.
- Mazda moved to exclude plaintiff’s experts (design expert Stephen Syson and causation/biomechanics expert Michelle Hoffman) under Daubert/Rule 702 and moved for summary judgment, including a Geier preemption defense.
- Speaks moved for partial summary judgment striking several of Mazda’s affirmative defenses (misuse, contributory negligence, compliance, state‑of‑the‑art, etc.).
- The court denied Mazda’s Daubert motions as to Syson and Hoffman, denied Mazda’s summary judgment motion (including on Geier preemption), and granted in part / denied in part Speaks’ motion — striking several affirmative defenses but preserving Mazda’s ability to assert preemption and to contest causation with certain evidence (not as negligence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Syson (design expert) | Syson relied on peer‑reviewed literature and testing supporting excessive torso/abdominal loading in automatic belting systems. | Mazda: Syson relied on studies that differ from the crash (lap belt usage, injury type, driver vs. passenger, crash severity) and did no personal testing. | Denied exclusion; methodology and literature reliance sufficiently reliable; criticisms go to weight, not admissibility. |
| Admissibility of Hoffman (biomechanics/causation) | Hoffman relied on medical records, depositions, vehicle inspection, literature, and concluded a properly routed shoulder belt caused abdominal injuries. | Mazda: Hoffman's causation is unreliable because it depends on Speaks' testimony that the shoulder belt was properly routed (contradicted by Mazda experts); and she lacks design expertise. | Denied exclusion for causation opinions; Hoffman's design‑defect opinions likely beyond her expertise and reserved for trial foundation. |
| Geier preemption (federal safety standard conflict) | Speaks: claim targets Mazda's particular design execution, not a categorical ban on passive restraints or airbags. | Mazda: A state claim that effectively requires elimination of passive restraint options conflicts with FMVSS 208 policy favoring a mix of passive systems. | Mazda not entitled to summary judgment on preemption; jury question exists and Mazda may assert preemption at trial if plaintiff's theory seeks to eliminate options protected by FMVSS 208. |
| Affirmative defenses (misuse, contributory negligence, compliance, state‑of‑the‑art) | Speaks: Montana law bars contributory negligence and state‑of‑the‑art defenses; evidence of compliance is irrelevant; under‑arm routing was foreseeable (owner's manual warns). | Mazda: Should be allowed to present misuse/negligence, regulatory context, and state‑of‑the‑art to rebut plaintiff's alternative‑design evidence. | Court strikes multiple defenses: contributory negligence and misuse (as negligence defense) barred; misuse defense fails because under‑arm routing was foreseeable (owner's manual); compliance and state‑of‑the‑art defenses are inadmissible; Mazda may rebut specific alternative‑design claims and assert preemption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (gatekeeping reliability of expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (trial court gatekeeping extends to all expert testimony)
- Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (federal safety standard can preempt state tort claims that conflict with regulatory mix‑of‑options policy)
- General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (abuse of discretion standard for excluding expert causation opinions)
- Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558 (focus on methodology over correctness; shaky evidence goes to weight)
- Messick v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 747 F.3d 1193 (Rule 702 admission standard and liberal thrust favoring admission)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard — draw all reasonable inferences for nonmovant)
- Stemhagen v. Dow, 282 Mont. 168 (Montana rejects state‑of‑the‑art defense in strict products liability)
- Malcolm v. Evenflo Co., 352 Mont. 325 (manufacturer compliance with regulations inadmissible to show lack of defect under Montana law)