Veronica Ochoa-Valenzuela v. Ford Motor Co.
685 F. App'x 551
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Single-vehicle rollover of a 2000 Ford Focus; Veronica Ochoa-Valenzuela sued Ford for strict products liability and negligence on behalf of herself and her children.
- First trial ended in mistrial (hung jury); second trial lasted 16 days and resulted in a verdict for Ford.
- Ochoa appealed the judgment and the denial of her Rule 59 motion for a new trial, raising evidentiary, jury-instruction, and punitive-damages issues.
- Key contested trial rulings: cross-examination using out-of-court expert statements, exclusion of Ochoa’s federal-standards expert (Allan Kam), exclusion of historical Ford documents and an IIHS study, and refusal to give a special standard-of-care jury instruction.
- The district court had excluded certain evidence as irrelevant or hearsay and had given general instructions on standard of care.
- Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding some evidentiary error harmless and no abuse of discretion on other exclusions or jury instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of out-of-court expert testimony on cross-exam | Ochoa: district court erred by allowing Ford to question her expert about another expert’s deposition and erred by not allowing reciprocal use of unrelated expert testimony | Ford: questioning was permissible impeachment/bias inquiry because Herbst relied on partner’s views | Court: allowing Ford to use another expert’s out-of-court testimony was inadmissible hearsay (should have been precluded); allowing cross-exam of Ochoa’s expert about partner’s opinion was abuse, but error was harmless. |
| Exclusion of federal-standards expert (Allan Kam) | Ochoa: Kam would explain federal safety standard formation and rebut Ford’s implication that compliance equals safety | Ford: Kam’s testimony was not sufficiently probative and would waste time | Court: no abuse of discretion—Kam’s probative value outweighed by waste of time; other expert testimony covered the point. |
| Exclusion of historical Ford documents and IIHS study | Ochoa: 1960s Ford documents and a 2008 IIHS study were relevant to roof-strength and knowledge issues | Ford: documents/study not probative of the condition of the 2000 Focus or whether it was unreasonably dangerous | Court: exclusions were within district court discretion as not relevant to defect of the vehicle at issue; some post-2000 arguments waived for lack of record citation. |
| Jury instruction on standard of care | Ochoa: district court should have given a special instruction on standard of care | Ford: general instructions adequately stated the law | Court: no abuse of discretion—the court’s instruction fairly covered standard of care and was not misleading. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Preciado-Gomez, 529 F.2d 935 (9th Cir. 1976) (expert bias inquiry permitted)
- In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litig., 534 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2008) (out-of-court expert testimony is hearsay when the expert did not adopt it)
- McEuin v. Crown Equip. Corp., 328 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2003) (harmless-error standard for evidentiary mistakes)
- Benavidez-Benavidez, 217 F.3d 720 (9th Cir. 2000) (abuse-of-discretion review for exclusion of expert testimony)
- Messick v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 747 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2014) (low relevancy bar for expert evidence)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995) (standards for admissibility of expert testimony)
- Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839 (9th Cir. 1999) (review standard for jury instructions)
- Alaskan Indep. Party v. Alaska, 545 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2008) (issues waived when appellant fails to cite the record)