Clark v. Mazda Motor Corp.

OK 19 Plaintiff, CLARK, Stephanie CORPORATION,

MAZDA MOTOR a/k/a Corporation,

Mazda Motors f/k/a Ltd.,

Toyo Kogyo, Defendants. 97,514.

No.

Supreme Court Oklahoma. 4, 2003.

March Moser, Wallace, F. A. Charles

Thomas Norman, Bradley Norman, W. B. John John Wallace, Norman, Edem, Meyer, Norman, E. Moser, PLLC, Norman, Oklahoma &Cox OK, plaintiff, Stephanie Clark. City, III, Draper DanielD. M. Bert Jones Gable, & Hieronymus Tucker Jones Rhodes Motor Tulsa, OK, Mazda for defendants Corporation, Mazda Motors f/k/a a/k/a Ltd., Motor of Toyo Kogyo, and Mazda America, Inc. OK, Travis, City,

Rex K. Oklahoma Adams, University Tulsa W. Charles OK, Tulsa, curiae Law, for amicus College of Lawyers Association. Trial Oklahoma Jr., Liability Ad- Young, Product Hugh F. Reston, VA, Council, Inc., Michael P. visory III, Peden, Strasburger & Jung, K. James Texas, L.L.P., Dallas, H. Alex- Price, Robert Love, ander, Jr., The Law Office J. John P.C., Alexander, Oklahoma Jr. H. Robert Liability OK, Product curiae City, for amicus Council, Advisory Inc.

WINCHESTER, J. matter involves instant District Court by the United States certified District Oklahoma for Western liability case. We question of whether asked to answer are O.S.2001, § 12-4201 of the Oklahoma condition of the sys seat's restraint Mandatory Act, O.S.2001, § Seat Belt herein, 12- tem that is at issue and not seq., interpreted 416 et as Bishop v. Taka conduct of the vehicle who either used or elected not to use the seat belt.3 Corp., ta OK P.3d bars the admission of evidence of seat belt use or non- Facts

use, in a products liability crashworthiness case2. The an is reported by facts the United swered as follows: Section 12-420 does not States District Court are as follows. This bar the admission of evidence of the use or case arises a from multi-vehicle accident non-use of seat belts a manufacturer's which the by 1989 Mazda 626 plaintiff, driven products (hereinafter liability case, Clark, Stephanie erashworthiness al "Clark," though it prohibits introduction of such evi crossed the center Bailey median of the H.E. impute negligence dence to or fault to a Turnpike and was involved four different person who elects not to wear a seat belt. two, collisions. In the first Clark's Mazda collided with a pickup southbound and the [ 2 We held 12-420 of Oklahoma's Man pickup's stock trailer. The third and fourth datory preclude Seat Belt Use Act did not collisions occurred when Clark's Mazda was admission pertaining of evidence to seat belt by struck twice a southbound tractor-trailer. use or nonuse in a manufacturers' ejected The fourth collision Clark out liability action for a defective seat belt re Mazda, back window of the amputated and system straint in Bishop her lower left arm. impact Clark's OK P.3d 459. The matter pavement paralyzed her. came to us as a certified from the ¶4 reported United States District Court for the Western The facts to the Court estab lish that safety system Oklahoma, District of Honorable R. Lee Clark's Mazda included a shoulder belt that West. We implications discussed the of the engaged automatically when the driver Mandatory Seat Belt Act and concluded it closed the door. This shoulder belt was protects persons in proceedings civil from across Clark's torso at the time of the colli connotations of fault but preclude does not sions. wearing Clark was not lap the manual admission of pertaining evidence to an auto belt. ¶¶ design. mobile's Bishop, 2000 OK In Bishop, T5 An initial review of the elements essen the issue concerned belt, the condition of the seat as tial to a successful manufacturers' opposed to the conduct of the seat belt user. lability claim necessary is begin as we Bishop, analysis legal presented of the issue this The sought therein to introduce evi question. federal certified We set forth the dence of a defective allegedly seat belt that legal blueprint for a disengaged and caused her be thrown claim in Kirkland v. General Motors case, the vehicle. 1974 OK 521 P.2d 1353. In Kirk In the instant the defendant manufacturer who seeks to land, we articulated plain three a elements introduce seat belt evidence. again, Once prove as tiff must and upon determined that in Bishop, plaintiff's elements, it is the design, of these a manufac- construction and 0.$.2001, provides: dent wherein the passenger driver and "Nothing Volkswagen in this act ejected shall be used in "Beetle" were and suffered proceeding in this state and injuries the use or nonuse as a result. Plaintiff's manufacturers' of seat belts shall not be submitted into evi- products liability theory in Lee was that a defec- dence in civil suit in Oklahoma." tive door latch allowed the door thus open, causing ejected injured. him to be 2. The instant matter involves crashworthiness is sues that impact. arise in cases of second We addressed injuries already 3. We note incorporated distinction that Clark between re has ceived impact" component in the "first theory collision those seat belt into her received impact," in a "second collision or in Lee case, her reliance on the shoulder belt alone, Volkswagen America, Inc., 1984 OK 48, ¶ 11, allegedly as the failed to 688 P.2d 1283, 1286. Lee involved "second im preclude ejection. her pact injuries" that arose in an automobile acci- ele- liability. These three con- adequately safeguards strict Clark's incurs turer will claim seat product that auto manufacturers ments, they pertain to a manufac- cern as components"in "safety all manufac- belts are Mazda, are as follows: as turer such turers' shoulder injury; 1) was the cause product and seat back are lap driver's seat 2) at the product existed the defect each other or physically connected to either the manufacturer's product left time the as to closely aligned in the Mazda 626 are so control; and possession occupant part seat's restraint be a 3) product unreason defect made 4 system. plaintiff or to the dangerous to the ably plaintiff's property. requires the statute T9 Clark contends belt. 52, ¶¶ 29-31, only that she wear the shoulder While Kirkland, P.2d 1974 OK conclusion, legal authority is cited for her no 1353at 1363. compliance with the seat that we note Clark's brings the instant T6 Clark herein. is not at issue Clark belt statute alleging a defective liability action complied apparently she with contends theory design, a that seat seatback and/or defect in an to demonstrate a statute effort design of the seat's question the calls into occupant system, in seat's restraint Mazda system in the Mazda 626 occupant restraint should reasoning that the shoulder belt alone (hereinafter Defendants, re- automobile. being ejected, and her from have restrained "Mazda,") collectively assert as ferred to so, seat do the driver's since it failed to (a belt, lap failure to wear her was Clark's design. in are defective seat back and/or Mazda 626 seat's component of the selectively eliminate ev- she cannot body to system) that caused her restraint components of pertaining to certain idence way in the vehicle such moved within system as occupant restraint such the seat's collapsed the the final collision the force of belt, offering as to lap evidence while ejected the car. and her from driver's seat belt, such as the shoulder other elements that Clark to offer evidence Mazda seeks an at- seat and seat bracket. Such driver's ejected had she worn not have been would holding Biskop in tempt misconstrues belt, back lap prove the seat and/or statutory pertaining to ignores the intent design are not defective. therein. 12-420we articulated lap the shoulder as follows: question is answered cumulativelycom- and seat back driver's seat O.S.2001, interpreted in as system in prise the seat's OK 12 P.3d may If we hold that Mazda the Mazda of evidence not bar the admission does lap designed to belt was present evidence seat belts use or non-use of being ejected and that keep occupants from erashwor- Clark, was not utilized this feature thiness case. in with our decision holding is harmonious intro- plaintiff therein to Bishop to allowthe QUESTION ANSWERED. pertaining to automo- duce seat belt evidence HARGRAVE, HODGES, OPALA, V.C.J., any negligence or design, opposed to bile as WINCHESTER, JJ., SUMMERS plaintiff, the latter of which is fault of the Concur. by § prohibited 12-420. KAUGER, J.), WATT, (joins C.J. that our limitation of are confident T8 We KAUGER, J.), (joins to those LAVENDER regarding seat belt use evidence (joins and BOUDREAU KAUGER liability actions which the vehicle J.) KAUGER, JJ., in Result. Concur system is issue occupant restraint seat's pur- ordinary Kirkland, consumer who plated adopted "un- the definition of we it, knowledge ordinary dangerous" § 402A reasonably contained chases Torts, community g Second as to its charac- the Restatement of to the comment common ' teristics." to-wit: Series, 52, ¶ 26, Kirkland, P.2d 1974 OK dangerous to an must be ''The article sold 1362,-1363. beyond would be contem- that which extent OPALA,V.C.J., SUMMERS, with whom (1967). law-imposed L.Ed.2d 1019 Similar J., joins part, concurring. obstacles to those encountered here in unreasonably impede which full disclo today's opinion 11 I concur in and write truth, sure of the are an anathema to due separately provide analysis an additional process. C.D.M., Adoption In Re to be answered. Of 103, ¶ 1, J., (Opala, n. imposition The manufacturer sued for Investments, dissenting); Three M Inc. v. must be full afforded Co., Ahrend (a) opportunity to show that the seat's occu C.J., (Opala, 1335 n. 34 concurring part pant was free of the attrib and dissenting part). (b) harm-dealing uted defect and/or plaintiff's injury is unrelated to the manufac ¶ why 3 It is far from clear we alleged duty. turer's discharg breach of today court, answer was certified to this un ing showing the onus of a Hability-defeating less, course, of persuad counsel succeeded in defense, may likely prove it critical also to ing judge the federal trial that in that, demonstrate question, the time in the litigation § provisions the may be 12-420 of provided restraint mechanism stood disen regarded as Oklahoma's substantive law.2 gaged, park in whole or process Due appear Several extant federal decisions to very would indeed mean little in the de if have so respect concluded with to similar scenario, $ scribed a legislatively 12-420 erected enactments from other states.3 Oklahoma's potent destroy r1 enough were to ba precedent own strongly militates in favor of only means of exoneration opposite an If any view.4 there was ever through proof its of an absent causal nexus § doubt about the character of the 12-420 plaintiff's between alleged harm and the application cases, bar in its to ly product. process defective Oklahoma's due appear clearly should now more resolved is co-extensive with the federal consti Today's opinion plainly than ever before. State, tution. Fair School Finance Council v. apply solely negli declares the bar to 1135, 1987OK n. 1148 48. gence govern products It does not Statutory barriers to essential of one's liability litigation. Our conclusion should (in case) innocence a criminal or of one's firmly certifying any court of con complete (in case) exoneration a civil must free cern about application the bar's to the trial of yield to superior gauge the Constitution's of § this case. Once the swept 12-420 bar is See, fundamental e.g., fairness. Rock v. away, admissibility occupant's of an Arkansas, use 62, 44, 2704, 483 U.S. 107 S.Ct. will, case, non-use of (1987); restraints this 97 L.Ed.2d 37 Georgia, Green v. 95, 97, solely by 442 2151-52, U.S. 99 S.Ct. controlled 60 federal evidence (1979), Alaska, L.Ed.2d 738 and, Davis v. 415 law's standards of relevance state- 308, 319-20, U.S. cases, 94 S.Ct. court standards of relevance (1974); L.Ed.2d 347 Chambers v. Mississippi, under the Oklahoma They Evidence Code.5 284, 302, 1038, 1049, U.S. S.Ct. give ample should comfort to the (1973); L.Ed.2d 297 Washington v. State no protection small amount of to the defen Texas, 14, 19, 1920,1923, 388 U.S. 87 S.Ct. 18 dant who, negligence cases, much unlike in provisions 1. The evidentiary ques- bar By Through 3. Chrysler Gardner Gardner v. tion, § found in 47 12-420, 0.$.2001 (10th are: Cir.1996); 89 F.3d 729, 736 Barron Nothing in this act shall be used in v. Ford Motor Co. Canada Ltd., 965 F.2d 195, proceeding in this state and (7th the use or Cir.1992); nonuse Dillinger Caterpillar, 199-200 of seat belts shall not be submitted into evi- Inc., (3rd Cir.1992); 959 F.2d Milbrand v. dence in civil suit in Oklahoma. Daimlerchrysler Corp., F.Supp.2d (E.D.Tex.2000). diversity In the trial of a case U.S. courts are governed solely by procedural federal law. Gas v. Center Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. perini for 415, 426-27, 116 S.Ct. 2211, 2219, 135 L.Ed.2d (1996); Keeling Bankers Trust Co. v. Lee & Associates, Inc., (10th 20 F.3d Cir. seq. § 5. 12 O.S.2001 2101 et 1994). (for product's its wage a forensic battle advantage requires must of the statute that party plaintiff belts to be fastened. The safety) without the benefit reasonable showing compliance (by stands barred from Hability-reducing def comparative fault's restraints) its use of and the defendant from Only then will evenhanded fair ense6 demonstrating plaintiff's nonobservance. ness, legal age-old prophesy, our tradition's hand, products lability On the other carry day again we for claim once class, bar, litigation were it to uncompromising excellence in make to solely applicable, become would inure to the adjudication. process of adversarial plaintiff's advantage. There it most would short, liability litiga 'I 4 In surely party exelude a defendant's tendered substantive-legal-norm § 12-420 is not entitled to tion proof of an absent causal nexus between its This is so because .7 status duty plaintiff's own and the harm. breach of actions the text of for that class jurisprudence, this court's as construed KAUGER, WATT, J., C.J., with whom entirely the merits of leaves unaffected BOUDREAU, join, LAVENDER and JJ. (and plaintiffs' the defendants' claims concurring in result: them).8 defenses majority responds 11 The to the certified cases, angwer negligence on the other T5 For Nevertheless, question. provided hand, quite 12-420's effect is different. provide is so broad as confusion rather by the There the merits are indeed isolation, clarity. in affected than Read the is answer contest, here in which impact the section encompassing of so as to swallow the rule of 47 (or non-use) § the use seat belts generally 12-420 makes 00.98.2001 that the use or of care both as of one's due unavailable evidentiary proper nonuse of seat belts is not cases, negligence want.9 In as well as of its material for submission in a civil suit in § by parties are affected alike the both practicing Neither the bar nor Oklahoma.2 evidentiary bar. Neither is able to take majority the read the to con bench should 52, . may OK seat belt evidence be admitted. The author 6. Kirkland v. General Motors ¶ 47, 1353, concurring opinion 521 P.2d 1367. would allow evidence of the use or nonuse of seat belts in all manufac- 466, note where we held 7. See Bishop, supra liability products or turer's causes whether not products liability litigation stands excluded that ques- the seat's restraint was called into 12-420, explaining § purview that the from of plaintiff. tion I unconvinced that 47 am lability issue in a defective seat [alt § 12-420, see note ©.S.2001 today's supra, case is the condition of the seat and not any jurisprudence opinion re- or of this Court's conduct of the seat belt user." encompassing quires result. such a broad and all Certainly, nothing language is in the there change enactment that does not the merits 8. An require negli- (or applied any against statute that would it be to any claim of defenses available of it) solely gence only addresses itself to matters of evi- indicates. but cases as the concurrence dence, any practice procedure not add or does The concurrence cites v. Takata see corpus contents to the of a state's substantive 3, infra, language proposition for the note its Crouch, v. OK law. Flick 256, O.S.2001, see note indicates that 261. For definition of an "issue on supra, part is not a of Oklahoma's "substantive" Shamblin v. merits," see Beasley, opinion law. The does not address this issue. holding clearly providing is stated in T2 It's short, negligence litigation, use or pertinent part: of restraints is removed the merits non-use question al- from "... The is answered as follows: and of the case both as an element of the claim person being though prevents the Act Shamblin, any available defense it. See choosing penalized proceeding in a civil supra note 7 at 1207. not to wear a seat it does not prohibit of evidence of the use or nonuse introduction 0.$.2001 provides: 12-420 1. Title liability in a manufacturers' action of seat belts ''Nothing any civil in this act shall be used in system." for a defective seat belt proceeding in this state and the use or nonuse concurring not, It does as the author evi- of seat belts shall not be submitted into believe, opinion contain leads the reader to dence suit Oklahoma." language indicating the seat belt statute will be concurring goes beyond opinion 2. The well inapplicable all manufacturers' lia- analysis" certified. The "additional bility range utilized broaden the of cases in which the use done the admission of evidence of 2003 OK CIV APP 32 belts in all manufacturer's non-use Grudowski, MINER and James Matthew erashworthiness cases. Appellants, Plaintiffs/ body Although opinion nar- in the rows the broad answer contained ac- clause, opinion's opening para- tion in the COMPANY, MID-AMERICA DOOR graph majority in the conclusion of the Defendant/Appellee. ques- opinion, to conform the answer to the 96,502. No. applicable law stated tion certified with opinion, should be an- swered as follows: Oklahoma, Appeals Court of Civil prohibits "Title 47 0.98.2001 DivisionNo. 4. introduction of the use or non-use of seat impute negligence or fault to a

belts 22, 2002. Jan. person electing not to wear a seat belt. Nevertheless, brings if the driver a manu Certiorari Denied March facturer's cause which implicates the seat's entire re system,

straint the introduction of use or pronounce

non-use is controlled in Bishop Corp.,3

ment

[2000] P.3d 45 [459].

before evidence of the use or non-use of a introduced, may

seat belt the manufac

turer must demonstrate that the erashwor-

thiness of the device claimed to be defec integrated

tive so with sys

the seat's entire require

tem as to consideration of the al

legedly defective device and the seat's en

tire as one

unit."

SUMMERS, concurring. J.

§1 Although generally I concur

opinion, agree separate I also con-

curring opinion impose insofar as would a

due-process requirement a allow defen- safety,

dant manufacturer to defend the

crashworthiness, product by showing of its bearing upon relevant facts the causation injury alleged have been caused having provided

the defendant's an unsafe

product. system. We answered and determined that 459, we ques prevented person being were asked to penalized answer the certified statute a prohibited proceeding choosing tion: whether O.S.2001 in a civil not to wear a admissibility prohibit of evidence of the "use or non- seat belt. it did not the intro- use of a seat belt ... civil suit in Okla duction of evidence of the use or nonuse of seat homa" for a manufacturers' belts in manufacturers' actions for de- system. claim based on a defective seat belt restraint fective seat belt restraint

Case Details

Case Name: Clark v. Mazda Motor Corp.

Court Name: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date Published: Mar 4, 2003

Citation: 68 P.3d 207

Docket Number: 97,514

Court Abbreviation: Okla.