*4 Before MERRITT and DAVID A. NELSON, Circuit Judges; OLIVER, District Judge.* OLIVER, D.J., delivered the opinion of court, MERRITT, J., joined. NELSON, DAVID A. 482-484), J. (pp. delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
OPINION OLIVER, District Judge. Defendant-Appellant, Chrysler Corpora- tion (“Chrysler”), appeals a jury verdict rendered against $235,629.13 it for in com- $3,000,000 pensatory and punitive dam- ages in a product liability action brought by Plaintiff-Appellee, Dorothy Clark (“Mrs.Clark”), individually and as Admin- istratrix of the Estate of Charles Clark (“Charles” or Clark”), “Mr. her deceased husband. It argues, in this grow- lawsuit ing out of a car crash in which Mr. Clark killed, (1) was the judgment for Mrs. Oliver, Jr., *The Honorable Solomon Ohio, United sitting by designation. States Judge District for the Northern District Barnett by Alfred driven cruiser Police judgment and reversed be should Clark Barnett”) from his (“Officer approaching failed to she favor because in its entered he per- Barnett testified Officer left. legally sufficient produce he saw to find causation hour when jury per miles traveling 55 a reasonable mit or, the alter- damages Offi- intersection. punitive into the impose pull Mr. Clark new trial (2) native, granted it should turned his brakes and applied Barnett cer Mrs. Clark’s (a) testimony of because to avoid left in an effort wheels should unreliable witnesses expert do However, not able to he the truck. un- court the trial been excluded have of his vehicle so, right fender conduct failure to Evid. 702 R. Fed der fender. left front truck’s struck product allegedly defective tests way they in such a collided vehicles pre- have could designs that of alternative slap” after “side rotated, causing them to death, injuries and the decedent’s vented continued Mr. Clark’s truck impact. instructed erroneously (b) while Officer position in a clockwise rotate safe- with federal compliance at the cruiser, south traveling Barnett’s ... considered “should be standards ty two left across continued impact, *5 time of on evidence of piece merely as one traffic, coming to rest of lanes northbound instructing case,” than rather in this issues 153 feet dirt embankment hitting a .after Revised Kentucky by the required as it accident, of the the course away. During 411.310(2) compli- (“KRS”) that § Statute a wearing seat Clark, not who was Charles created safety standards federal ance with and his vehicle belt, ejected from was Dodge a product, that the presumption a six died He grass median. into the thrown (c) defective, and truck, not was Ram Kentucky University of later at hours Mrs. erroneously allowed trial injuries sustained as a result Hospital other testify regarding to expert determined The coroner accident. that alleged incidents to cardior- was due of death cause that the establishing defective without was product injury to and blunt force arrest espiratory “substan- were involved incidents vehicle of a motor out growing thorax in this case. the incident to tially similar” nephews Mr. Clark’s herein, Neither collision. discussed For reasons wearing seat They were ejected. affirmed. is was trial court of the judgment accident. Officer at the time belts I. belt, and wearing a seat Barnett, who was cruiser traveling con- in the of a small Clark, owner was dog an Charles injured on injured. The fatally seriously him, was company, struction with accident automobile 14,1993, in an to was testified Barnett injury October Officer Freddy nephews, two and his right he fore- when to laceration a three-inch (“Billy”), Billy Clark (“Freddy”) and Clark arm. Kentucky, to obtain Gray, joba site left diversity juris- had District Court The driving his Clark, who lunch. three-day a After the case. over diction Ken- on pickup cab club Dodge Ram 1992 ver- a unanimous jury rendered Freddy 233 Highway tucky eight-person 1, The October dict seat, in the back Billy and front seat claims Clark of Mrs. in favor jury found Highway intersection at the stopped failure to and liability, negligence of strict Mr. Clark 25. As Route Interstate agreed-to in answer It stated 25, warn. Route onto turn a left to make began interrogatories: Kentucky State hit his truck (1) Dodge pickup testing Ram track relative to the accident in suit. We was defective and un- review the decision of a district court to question
reasonably dangerous
expert
use
admit or exclude
Clark,
abuse of
Elec.
v.
discretion. General
Co.
Charles
such defect
Joiner,
136, 138-139,
522 U.S.
118 S.Ct.
was a substantial factor
defects
(1997).
injuries
II. acceptance in community, may the relevant Chrysler argues that the trial court be considered the trial in regard testimony should have proffered expert excluded the non-scientific testimo experts, Peterson, However, Mrs. Billy ny. Clark’s Mr. Id. explained Court expert, Gilberg, Mr. Andrew a whether these factors are “reasonable B-pillar reliability and accident ex in a particular reconstruction measures of case pert, they perform any grants because did not is matter law motion, Mr. Peter- the court summarized Id. at to determine.” judge broad latitude testimony as follows: son’s 153, 119 S.Ct. testify about Peterson will Mr. [Y]our li- filed motion Chrysler At B particularly pillars, pillars general, of both of testimony regarding
mine
Chrysler/Dodge
compare
and will
of its
experts.
support
Mrs.
pillars
B
of con-
B
with the
pillar
Mr.
to exclude
seeking
motion
limine
Chevrolet, Ford, Nissan and
temporary
argued that
testimony,
Gilberg’s
Mr.
will
Peterson
Toyota pickup trucks.
were not based
opinions
Gilberg’s
Mr.
design
concept
B
pillars
discuss
had
that he
tests
independent scientific
and deformation
and materials
structure
any
produce
not
that he did
conducted
principles
are basic
principles,
opinions.
his
which he based
test results
testify
He will
engineering.
mechanical
motion, stating:
court denied
The trial
pillar
of B
rotation
that horizontal
method
a scientific
Gilberg] used
[Mr.
recognized
ais well
door latch striker
Even
testing door latches.
previously
impact
system
a latch
failure of
side
particular
it in this
do
though he didn’t
accidents.
these latches be-
case,
speak to
he can
Thereafter, noting
Dau-
at 105.
JA
similar
previously tested
he
cause
has
to come
require
expert
“an
does not
bert
between
the differences
And
latches.
any given
actually perform tests
in and
on cross-
can be examined
latches
those
situation,”
the court concluded
.... Those differences
examination
merely
precluded
not be
should
motion.
grant
a Daubert
a reason
performed
Peterson had
Mr.
because
(“JA”)
99. The court
Appendix
Joint
found
in the case. The court
testing
further:
stated
based on his
opinions
examina-
Peterson’s
sufficiently reli-
his own
to be
upon
B-pillar
is based
opinion]
tion of
[His
on his
they
latches here
were based
because
physical examination
able
and his
conducting
engineer
of his
a mechanical
upon
training as
at issue and
engineer
safety standards
as a
testing.
experience
own
*7
Safety
Highway Traffic
the National
with
his own
knowledge
upon
is based
[H]is
(“NHTSA”).
He
Administration
of fact
assists the trier
testimony and
opinion
an
to render
permitted
therefore
determine
the evidence
understand
and
open
came
how the door
trial on
at
to let
going
And
I’m
in
so
a fact
issue.
defective.
the latch was
it in.
accep-
talk
on to
about
goes
DaubeH
A.
and other
in the field
tance of others
its
trial court did
abuse
And
reliability.
establishing
methods of
Gilberg to testi
allowing Mr.
discretion
his
testimo-
that with
own
I’m satisfied
Gilberg’s
Mr.
for
trial. The bases
at
fy
taken care of.
ny, that’s all
clearly reliable.
are
opinions
at 100.
JA
thorough
First,
demonstrated
Mr. Gilberg
sys
door latch
knowledge
automobile
motion
argued
Chrysler also
its
undergrad
an
Gilberg received
Mr.
Peterson
tems.
testimony of
that the
Mr.
limine
engineering
in mechanical
degree
be- uate
should be excluded
regarding B-pillars
Institute
Polytechnic
Rensselaer
exami-
from
physical
conducted a
cause he
Degree mechanical
Masters of Science
any
do
B-pillar
did
nation of
Michi-
University of
from the
engineering
ruling on the
Prior to
testing himself.
gan. He worked for Ford Motor Compa-
K latch had two basic
elements,
ny
years
safety
for six
the area of
called a ratchet and a pawl, that
together
work
beginning
research
1978. He later
to hold the door closed.
Mr. Gilberg described the
four-year period
worked for a
with
ratchet as a
Versa-
U-
tech,
shaped pivoting arm
grasps
consulting company,
striker
doing, among
(a
sticking
bolt
out of
B-pillar
at the
things,
investigations
other
accident
in-
door)
opening
rear
and holds the
companies, attorneys,
surance
the automo-
door
pawl
closed. The
is a detent lever
industry
governments.
bile
and local
In
tooth,
with a little
“drags
down and
capacity,
he looked at “how vehicles
holds the ratchet in a
position.”
closed
JA
up
acted and held
in” accidents and was
words,
at 142. In other
when the striker
sometimes involved
reconstructions of
on the frame moves into the latch on the
Eventually,
accidents.
JA
Mr.
door,
pawl
drops down to hold the
ejection
came to
Gilberg
study the
of occu-
ratchet closed. When the
pulled,
handle is
vehicles,
pants from
including how and
lifted,
pawl
releasing the striker and
why ejections happen.
began
he
opening the door. Normally,
only way
analyzing cases involving door latch fail-
door
open
should
is when the inside or
ures. At the time of
he was em-
outside
pawl.
handle lifts the
Bypass fail-
ployed by
own company
and had been
ure occurs when the
pawl
ratchet and
testing
involved in
door
latches
out of alignment with each other. When
strength
they
and how
failed for twelve
this happens,
they
slide
each other.
years.
that point,
At
almost all of Mr.
Fourth,
Gilberg
Mr.
examined the latch
Gilberg’s
work dealt
door latches and
in this case twice. He also examined other
systems;
door latch
he had done approxi-
K latches identical
to the one on Mr.
mately
200 cases of this type
the time
Dodge
Ram which had been in-
of trial.
volved in
During
accidents.
his testimony,
Second,
Gilberg
has done extensive
he emphasized there was not much dam-
latches,
testing on
particular,
door
and in
age
door,
to the frame of the
even where
failure,
testing
bypass
which is what he
occurred,
the collision
or to the area of the
maintains caused the door of the 1992
truck where the screws hold the latch onto
pickup
case,
open
in this
was, however,
the door. There
significant
ejecting Mr. Clark. For example, Mr. Gil
damage
B-pillar,
to the
which was twisted
berg
designed
has
a number of
fixtures
Likewise,
and rotated outward.
the strik-
test door latches.
Gilberg’s
One Mr.
er, which
normally
forward,
would
point
tests was specifically designed to
by
test
had been turned outward. Mr. Gilberg
*8
pass failure. This test has been
by
used
further
testified that his examination of
the NHTSA. The fact that he did not do the latch revealed several indications that
any specific testing in
goes
this case
to the
bypass failure had
in
occurred
this case.
weight
of his
and not to its Specifically,
pointed
he
to the
denting
admissibility.
Clay,
See
Third, Mr. Gilberg’s testimony at trial striker was forced and a nick on the ratch- that demonstrates he was familiar with the et caused the getting fork bolt hooked Chrysler latch, K type the found on the on the pawl. corner of the This indicated Dodge Ram which was involved in the to him that the ratchet pawl and the were accident, and which was the primary door out alignment “just at the end a latch by Chrysler used for a period of 12 to little bit of clipped metal was off.” JA at years, beginning in explained 1981. He According 159. to Gilberg, Mr. this meant door, in an effort to to the direction burst particularly pawl, lift that you “if that Gilberg Mr. Although lock off. make shear the here to it out force to bottom enough Chrysler K latch did not that the latch.” JA testified nick, have you released tests, two he ex- poorly on perform K latches Mr. these to the other 160. As at latches are almost never sub- that examined, plained that at least he testified Gilberg shear longitudinal pure or jected pure manner in an identical failed four had Rather, the force total, during a crash. and, had force in this lawsuit one usually a combina- to the latch is indi- applied He further ejections. in five resulted forces, but twist-out of not these cases tion bypass twist-out the five cated as well. the last five force occurred within had seen he to suit. years prior six
or reliability Gilberg’s Mr. testimo- by the issue is substantiated ny as to this testimony at trial Fifth, Gilberg’s Mr. Highway National techni- extensive fact that he had demonstrates a no- posted Safety Traffic Administrator failure type bypass knowledge on cal indicating its Register K in the Federal tice performed that was testing change testing procedure desire to the time of manufactured at latches reflective of the to make it more inadequa- accident, on the latches specifically, in an acci- undergo latches kind of stress that the testified testing. He of such cies dent.1 failure has been bypass of latch concept type this industry since
known testimony at trial Gilberg’s Mr. Finally, stated that He was introduced. latch and state-of-the- regarding state-of-the-art designed to resist itself latch at the time industry in door latches Motor Ve- by the Federal described forces manufactured also Dodge Ram was (“FMVSS Safety hicle Standards were reli- opinions that his demonstrates 206”). require au- safety standards Those he testified that Specifically, able. demonstrate, a ma- through tomobiles pickup in the 1992 latch latch holds the “rigidly test chine or state-of-the-indus- not state-of-the-art other,” that jaw and the striker one on the door hinges try. He noted a certain up to pulled apart they cannot be was no and that there damaged Accord- pressure. JA amount making the door challenge to technical testimony, there Gilberg’s ing to Mr. Indicating hinges. strong as the latch in that test problems with significant “systems was a problem the overall not allowed striker are latch and he problem, latch just and not problem,” they other as relative to each around move the latch strength of explained they are example, For body. car do stiffening up have been increased could twist, ap- latch making the allowed to mounting moving mounting Thus, is. actually it stronger than pear they together so screws closer points or how the accurately relate does not the test the ratchet area where could bracket in an accident. perform will latch made the This have meet. would pawl add- without prying more resistant prob- that another Gilberg testified that could Another method ing weight. force requires it with the test is that lem *9 stronger the latch used to make directions-longi- have been only in applied two which a ratchet travels) to utilize (the have been and in a would tudinally way the ear test was not strength ration objections to the no- Chrysler written 1. filed of the latch assem- systems test tice, to be fixture meant indicating method and bly attachments. sepa- and its developed latch striker to evaluate bracketed both sides the detent lever so was a sufficiently reliable basis for Mr. pawl tooth was inside the ratchet Peterson’s testimony at trial. and could not move sideways. He de- found, As the trial court the fact that examples scribed several in industry Mr. Peterson conducted a physical that were state-of-the-art at the time Mr. B-pillar examination of the and did not do manufactured, Dodge Ram Clark’s in- any testing himself does not render his cluding pin system, and cone ahas Clay, unreliable. 215 F.3d at pin sticking body out of the that mates First, 668. Mr. Peterson’s testimony as to with a in the latch help hole reinforce the cause of the opening door was based Gilberg the latch. Mr. testified that it was on his extensive background in automobile opinion, to a degree reasonable engi- safety testing. graduated Mr. Peterson neering certainty, that a state-of-the-indus- from North Carolina State with a Bachelor try latch would not have allowed the door of Degree Science in mechanical engineer- on the Dodge open. Ram to ing working After period short Army at Aberdeen Proving reasons, For these the trial court did not division, Grounds the automotive he err in Mr. allowing Gilberg to testify at in aerospace worked Sperry NASA and trial. Mr. Gilberg’s opinion that Rand years. for seven In he began a system Ram K latch was defective thirteen-year NHTSA, stint with the and that it was unreasonably dangerous Department U.S. Transportation entity was based on his technical knowledge with responsible for establishing the rules and respect to systems, automobile door latch standards automobile manufacturers have testing his extensive of door latch bypass to comply with in the United States. At failure, his familiarity with the K NHTSA, Mr. Peterson was a safety latch, his examination of the latch in this engineer standards responsible for writing case as well as other K latches identical to standards to apply to vehicles. During lawsuit, the one involved in this his techni- period, he up also set a small test cal knowledge as to the type bypass facility in City, Atlantic where NHTSA did testing failure performed on testing, research and development. There Chrysler K latches manufactured at the he was kinds, involved testing of various accident, time of the as well as the fact including side impact testing and rear im- that a state-of-the-industry door pact In testing. he transferred to probably prevented would have Mr. Transportation Research Center of ejection. The court therefore Ohio, another facility, NHTSA to create a agrees with the trial court that under Dau- research, development, and testing arm of bert, sufficiently there was a reliable foun- the Center. He awas division chief dation for Mr. Gilberg’s testimony. charge project engineering and in- volved a substantial amount of testing B. safety-related defects vehicles. His work with this group also included re- The trial court also did not err search on barrier tests for the NHTSA denying Chrysler’s motion in limine with research and development group in Wash- respect to expert, Plaintiffs’ other Mr. Pe ington. terson. Mr. Peterson was hired to testify an expert why the door Mr. Peterson established Auto- Clark’s truck open came and on accident Safety mobile Testing, Incorporated. For reconstruction. Gilberg, Like Mr. there the first years six or seven compa- *10 sheet little more than the being as case existence, consulting work it did ny’s very light- vehicle. It is body of the per- metal manufacturers, including Chrysler, which, for the sheet metal ly Even after reinforced of tests. types forming various into a not been formed box. part, he con- has company, his most started Mr. Peterson alloy steel Re- the metal as a low Transportation described with He to consult tinued (i.e., years. strength in tension high for six which is of Ohio Center search doing less began grabbed it either side company the when is Eventually, bending in previously very strong than manufacturers but is not pulled), work Peterspn litigation. in that in testified more involved Mr. and became or shear. in this B-pillar .the involved opinion, his through his testified Peterson Mr. vehicle at time the was defective the case Automobile the NHTSA and work He- was made and assembled has involved Safety Testing, he been accident, “the striker that after the noted of the side tests. Some of crash hundreds directly to the parallel should be on involved tests he worked crash impact pointed ... it’s line of the vehicle center the crash latches. evaluating door Most JA at at an to that direction.” angle out so that Mr. with dummies were run tests being as B-pillar the B24. He described study occupant could and others Peterson outward. bowed if it hit kinematics, dummy moved how the it would to which and the extent anything, Third, testimony at trial Mr. Peterson’s if it were a human. injured been have state-of-the-industry in B- regarding run with these tests would Occasionally, Ram Dodge time at the pillars unrestrained. occupant demonstrates manufactured also his Second, opinions and Peterson’s Mr. reliable. opinions were testimony and part in the case based how testified about Mr. Peterson At truck, of Mr. Clark’s examination on his vehicles at the time other scene, report, the police accident manufactured, Toyota a including in the depositions and the photographs Ford, Nissan, and a a 1991 pickup, the truck examined originally He case. is, B-pillar B-pillars; that “boxed” had to his it back Kentucky brought then but area of and reinforced boxed inspec- in-depth more facility in Ohio for of the Analyzing B-pillar striker. actually able to Although he was not tion. involved Chrysler pickup used type car, photographs he studied police view accident, that it noted Mr. 'Peterson it.of design within a box the box not utilize did the B- Although as as in the other vehicles. of the truck on his examination
Based have truck did some pillar Mr. automo- knowledge of as his extensive well up, window boxing from the bottom explained testing, Mr. Peterson safety bile until “consider- begin boxing did attached door to which the the structure tes- Peterson the striker.” Mr. ably above “B-pillar.” it closed was called when truck was in Clark’s B-pillar tified the “skeleton” B-pillar He described the latch where place out at the pillars twisted and noted of the vehicle According attached. plate is as a structure. striker to act usually reinforced there was him, because latch failed Peterson, one of the According to prevent the window nothing below to make a ways and easiest most efficient Mr. Peterson twisting out. from B-pillar of sheet metal to make box structure Dodge Ram the latch on welding it. spot testified square by forming state-of-the-art; to the clearly in this was However, B-pillar he described the *11 contrary, probably years it was out of four alleged other proof incidents as date. He further testified that he the Dodge defective, had Ram door latch was B-pillar never seen a single was a though even showing there was no piece of sheet metal like the one other incidents involved circumstances Dodge Ram. He B- concluded “substantially similar” to those surround- pillar defectively designed was and that ing Mr. Clark’s accident. boxing prevented would have the twist-out. In order for prior evidence of Finally, Mr. Peterson’s testimony was admissible, accidents to be prior acci in part general based acceptance in the dents must be “substantially similar” to automobile industry regarding B-pillar the accident in Rye suit. v. Black & Deck testing at the Dodge time the Ram was Co., (6th Mfg. er 889 F.2d Cir. manufactured. Mr. Peterson indicated 1989). “Substantially similar means that though B-pillar twist-out was a known the accidents must have occurred under failure mode in the industry, automobile he similar circumstances or share the same had never seen one to the extent of the cause.” Id. at In reviewing the ad one involved this lawsuit. He noted mission or exclusion of evidence concern that in General Motors submitted a ing incidents, accidents or ap this court procedure twist-out test to NHTSA for plies an abuse of discretion standard. informational purposes. procedure making determination, this the trial court’s was also made available other automo- decision is to given great latitude and it manufactures, bile including Chrysler. cannot be reversed unless there is a strong Despite its that General awareness Motors showing review, Upon abuse. Id. we twist-out, testing was its B-pillars conclude that the trial court did not abuse Chrysler did not choose to test its latches its discretion in allowing Mr. Gilberg to for twist-out failure. testify about the four prior Chrysler K reasons, For Chrysler’s these motion in latch failures. limine to exclude Mr. Peterson prop- The testimony which Chrysler objects erly denied court. Mr. Peter- during occurred the direct examination opinions son’s on his based extensive Mr. Gilberg concerning why the test re- background in safety automobile testing; quired by 206 did not realistically FMVSS truck, his examination of Mr. Clark’s represent likely what happen in a scene, accident police report, pho- side impact During portion accident. tographs case; and the depositions examination, his direct Mr. Gilberg tes-
the state-of-the-art and state-of-the indus- tified that 206: FMVSS try in B-pillars; general acceptance in is a test of either the shear strength or industry automobile regarding B-pillar the tensile strength of the latch. This testing at the time the Dodge Ram was latch, the almost latches never —I could manufactured. The agrees court therefore even say a crash a latch is almost Daubert, the trial court that under put never in a pure tension or a pure there a sufficiently reliable foundation shear. It’s either a both, combination of for Mr. testimony. Peterson’s usually there is a force acting twist-out III. the latch as well. argues also that it is enti JA at 164. Mr. Gilberg indicated that
tled to a new trial because the trial court from his examination permitted Mr. latch, Gilberg testify regarding he could subjected tell that it was *12 subjected a being to the vehicles involved thereafter force. Counsel a twist-out load, in the accident prying or as Gilberg twisting Mr. testimony from to elicit sought Gilberg’s the context of Mr. K suit. From in examination regarding prior the acci- testimony, it is evident that Chrysler’s accidents. in other latches cause as Mr. dents shared- the same of rele- ground objected on the counsel testimony Gilberg’s Mr. Clark’s accident. took following colloquy vance, he could tell clearly demonstrated that at side bar: place looking at a door latch whether or counsel]: [Defendant’s MR. SUTTER subjected a to twist-out latch had been ejection type in this an never seen He’s an during load accident. prying force in ejections He has seen vehicle. that Gilberg tell Because. Mr. could vehicles, other makes and other other prior, in as well as accidents latches damaged club cab. in a None models. in suit had all been in the accident you going Where THE COURT: .are just force and not subjected to twist-out this? shear force. a tensile and/or Your counsel]: [Plaintiffs MR. HAY latches. Honor, five other got he’s—he’s fact that the acci Although the K latches? Five THE COURT: would have the same cause dents shared Pardon me? MR. HAY: trial court’s enough support been K latches? Five THE COURT: testimony Gilberg’s Mr. conclusion Oh, had the same fail- yes, admitted, testimony HAY: also MR. should on the basis that ure. have been admitted could cir similar vehicles, Clark’s accident involved in In other Mr. MR. SUTTER: In or prior accidents. cumstances as accidents. other that an accident occurred prove der examina- That’s cross THE COURT: circumstances, it is not nec under similar tion. Overruled. Chrysler argues, essary prove, at 166-167. JA vehicle iden accidents prior involved he Thereafter, Gilberg testified that Mr. or that by Mr. Clark to the one driven tical K identical to other latches had examined accidents of the circumstances all and that in the lawsuit the one involved noted As the Circuit identical. Tenth in a manner “iden- them had failed four of Co., 214 F.3d Ingersoll-Rand in v. Smith lawsuit, the latch involved tical” to (10th Cir.2000): ejected. being persons in five resulting similarity rule does not The substantial latches that these at 167. He indicated JA nor does it products; require identical years prior five or six failed had compare products require us to bypass involved twist- they trial and requires The rule sub- entireties. their just as the lock the locks out failure of the variables similarity among stantial did. involved the Clark accident theory of de- plaintiffs relevant to Mr. Gil purpose It is clear that fect. recent in the four berg’s about case, inci- all of the In this K latch Id. at 1248. seen the where he had stances involved fail- Gilberg testified failure was to dents twist-out bypass suffer a involving of the K latch accidents latches ure that door further demonstrate light Particularly by Chrysler vehicles. measured ways failed were Bar- that Officer testimony in the case him expertise taught 206. His FMVSS truck at a hit Mr. Clark’s of nett’s cruiser result that these failures bypass (i.e., likely relatively impact low most at a determine whether the instructions ade lower, most, same, impact or at than quately jury inform the of relevant consid accidents), prior the trial court would provide erations a basis law for justified in concluding have been aiding to reach its decision.” His the prior circumstances of accidents were Am., Inc., rich v. Volvo N. Cars sufficiently (6th *13 to the similar accident 445, Cir.2000) (citation F.3d 449 omit Gilberg’s testimony. case to allow Mr. ted). Giving judge the trial the latitude re- To support argument its that Chrysler’s standard, quired by the abuse of discretion compliance with FMVSS 206 created a
we find that she did not abuse her discre- presumption Dodge that the Ram pickup allowing Gilberg’s testimony tion in defective, truck was not Chrysler cites prior requiring the four accidents and (“KRS”) Kentucky Revised Statutes to show on cross-examination 411.310(2), § which states: such dissimilarities between the accidents action, In any product liability it shall be as it wished. presumed, until prepon- rebutted a contrary, derance the evidence to
IV. the product that the was not defective if the Chrysler lastly argues that it is manufacture, design, methods of a trial entitled to new because the trial testing generally conformed to the rec- erroneously court failed to give jury ognized and prevailing standards or the Chrysler’s instruction that compliance with state of the art in existence at the time a presumption FMVSS 206 created that design prepared, was prod- Dodge pickup Ram truck was not de uct was manufactured. instruction, fective. Instead of such an trial gave following court instruction: Chrysler acknowledges that Kentucky
You have heard that the Supreme door Court has not addressed the is and hardware of the 1992 sue of whether the presumption embodied 411.310(2) truck pickup complied with § Feder requires KRS in jury Safety al Motor Vehicle Standard 206. struction. Owens-Corning Fiberglas See Compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Corp. Golightly, v. 976 S.W.2d 415 Safety exempt Standard 206 does not (Ky.1998) (refusing to address the issue Chrysler Corporation from any liability because it presented had not been for ap you may review). find. This standard should be pellate It argues nevertheless by you merely piece considered as one pursuant § that 411.310(2), to KRS it was evidence the issues this case. The requested entitled its instruction. application of the standard to the facts review, On the court finds that trial solely you of the case is to deter court did abuse its discretion in refus- mine, is the weight given to be ing give requested the instruction standard in determining the issues. Circuit, Chrysler. The Fourth in applying JA at 462. 411.310(2) § in product liability KRS ac- manufacturer,
This court reviews a district tion against a helmet found court’s to give requested jury refusal in jury no such instruction required. was Helmets, Inc., structions under an abuse of discretion v. Sexton Bell 926 F.2d Inman, (4th Cir.1991), standard. See Buziashvili v. parties agreed (6th Cir.1997). F.3d We designed review at the time the helmet was jury manufactured, instructions “as a whole in order to there were three indus- do 1952), Kentucky jury instructions “[i]n pertaining existed try standards evidentiary presumptions.” include par- The of helmets. manufacturing of such purpose clarified The court helmet issue that the agreed ties also they: presumptions, explaining Af- the standards. with each of complied presented ter substantial going forward with alter the burden defective, the trial product evidence, in a may and thus result presumption concluded of coun- directed verdict absence considered. a matter to be longer no [However,] jury tervailing evidence. court, therefore, the case sent instructions should framed any regarding without instruction jury from believe state what must in KRS forth set presumption in order to return a verdict the evidence 411.310(2). of Appeals The Court § *14 bears the party of the favor who stating: proper, that this was agreed proof. of burden substan- present to plaintiff the fails [i]f the court also described Chapman Id. The a his case that prove to tial evidence jury to instructions Kentucky approach defective, di- the court will product detail, provide to provide not to but verdict; presents plaintiff the rect the if “ jury for question bones’ of the the ‘bare him carries that evidence substantial Id. determination.” threshold, the verdict the directed over of Kentucky Court The decision jury the case to will take evidence v. Sub-Zero Appeals in Leslie Cincinnati time, and, overcome at the same Products, (Ky.App. 961 S.W.2d by the statute. created presumption 1998), conclusion that supports the further presump- rebutting for standard The giving err in not did not court i.e., statute, by introduc- under the tion Chrysler’s compliance jury instruction by a shows a defect evidence that tion of a presumption 206 created with FMVSS ... is the of the preponderance was not truck pickup prima out a makes as that which same Leslie, appellate court In defective. for the plaintiff. case facie granting court’s the trial overruled Indeed, it noted that could the court Id. motion, summary judgment defendant’s why the trial court no reason “perceive on the had relied where the defendant statuto- ever have to instruct would doing § in KRS 411.310. presumptions (“Having burst Id. ry presumption.” stated, statutory pre so, “[t]he the Court [of of evidence by the introduction bubble § do no more 411.310 sumptions of KRS defect], was entitled plaintiff product [plain proof with the burden than leave evi- decided on the question to have was defec product] prove [the to tiff] of KRS presumption dence Id. tive.” 411.310(2) longer applicable.”). nowas reasons, this For above-mentioned is opinion Sexton Fourth Circuit’s The Supreme Kentucky court finds pre- in which the manner in accord with jury to conclude that unlikely is in civil Court handled generally are sumptions established presumption on the instruction juries Kentucky, where cases 411.310(2) There- necessary. § in KRS presump- regard normally instructed by the fore, given the instruction because of circum- in a set except narrow tions informed adequately court Kentucky Supreme Id. As the stances. provided relevant Print- considerations Chapman v. Meyers
Court stated reaching its deci- law for Inc., (Ky. jury a basis Co., ing 840 S.W.2d sion, judge did not in failing the trial err to reasonable minds (citing could differ.” Id. Goodman, give requested Chrysler. Washington the instruction v. 830 S.W.2d (Ky.App.1992)). In the determination motion, every such a favorable inference V. may reasonably which be drawn from the argues also that the trial court evidence should be accorded the party refusing grant erred in motion its against whom motion is made. Id. law, judgment as a matter both in re- gard compensato- claim for Mrs. Clark’s ry damages punitive and her claim for Kentucky § adopted has 402A will damages. first address (Second), Torts, the Restatement Chrysler’s arguments regard to com- imposes liability product manufacturers pensatory damages. upon showing that the product is “in a unreasonably defective condition danger A. ous the user or consumer.” Under support To its motion judg law, Kentucky a defect can be said to be ment as a matter of law regard the cause of an injury or death if it is a compensatory damages, Chrysler main substantial factor in bringing about the *15 tains that Mrs. Clark failed to establish injury Shein, or death. Deutsch v. 597 the cause of Mr. Specifical Clark’s death. 144 (Ky.1980). S.W.2d At Mrs. ly, Chrysler argues that there was insuffi sought Clark to establish that Mr. Clark’s presented support jury cient evidence a injuries and death were caused a defec finding ejection that Mr. Clark’s from the tive door latch on the 1992 Dodge Ram than, vehicle caused his death rather for pickup that driving he was at the time of example, injuries he sustained inside the his death. record, On review the trial vehicle. Inasmuch as the court al has we find that there was evidence in the ready determined that the trial court did record from which could have not in refusing err to bar testimony of concluded that Ram’s defective Mrs. experts Clark’s under Fed.R.Evid. door latch was a substantial in factor 702 or in admitting testimony regarding bringing about Mr. Clark’s death. accidents, other the court will consider Specifically, Mrs. Clark offered testimo- Chrysler’s arguments respect with to its ny to establish that the accident did motion in light of all of the occur at high impact and that Mr. Clark record. would not have seriously injured been case, diversity In a the denial killed had his door latch not failed and he a judgment of motion for as a ejected matter of not been from the truck. The fact law based sufficiency of the evidence is neither Mr. nephews was reviewed under the law ejected of the state whose and that neither suffered any seri- law governs, substantive which in injuries this case ous supports this theory. Freddy, is Kentucky. See Morales v. Honda Mo who sitting front passenger seat Co., (6th Cir.1998). tor 151 F.3d 506 accident, at the time of the testified that law, Under Kentucky a judg motion for the accident my “stoved up neck a little bit, ment as a grant matter of law “should be but it didn’t hurt me that bad.” at JA ed if there a complete seat, is absence of Billy, sitting 238. in the back proof action, on a material room, issue or if seen the emergency where he was disputed no issue of fact upon given Tylenol Likewise, exists and sent home.
477 accident, he after the the truck tion of that was trav- dog and the Barnett Officer into the driver’s nothing protruding were not found him cruiser in the eling tes- The officer of the truck. space inside injured. seriously sign no that Mr. there was tified that trial that testimony at Barnett’s Officer contact with significant had Clark two vehicles between collision no there was Specifically, steering wheel. sup- further lent blow” “glancing simply compartment passenger damage in at JA 240B. position. to Mrs. Clark’s port panel inner door than to the space, other officer, Gary Mar- police investigating thrown. Mr. Clark was into which “glanc- as a collision tin, described also “it was not noted that and ing blow” 2. all.” JA blow at degree
direct Peterson, expert disagree testi- provided who does Chrysler reconstruction, testified 402A, ques appropriate § accident mony on that under ain system truck resulted to the the blow defective tion whether “approximately velocity bringing about factor change awas substantial at 309. JA the truck.” hour on How per Mr. Clark. miles or death of injuries like tak- this “would explained decision ever, He citing court’s down to running it America, truck Nos. ing this Volkswagen O’Bryan v. miles at 15 approximately 93-5314, barrier concrete 39 F.3d 93-5292 crash test that the (noting Id. (6th Cir.1994), hour.” main per WL 599450 miles per cars was new standard own actions Mr. Clark’s because tains that testimony at trial hour). was also accident, There the automobile precipitated oth- officer investigating police ap doctrine “crashworthiness” so-called vehicle to Mr. Clark’s damage ers the crashworthi case. Under to this plies body *16 the mostly fender/wheel un doctrine, recovery was deny “courts ness or close the the frame area, and not by competent establishes plaintiff the less latch. door re the defect was testimony that expert for enhancement degree to some sponsible that the im- also testified Mr. Peterson *4. at Id. plaintiff.” to the injury pickup left front wheel to the pact immediately propelled have truck would opinion unpublished on this In relying into the impact toward Mr. Clark pursu- that court, Chrysler maintains our sup- He vehicle. front door left case 26(g), the Rule Circuit ant to Sixth that the with evidence opinion ported'this to a in relation value precedential “has out, indi- inside from the door was bowed that there in the case issue material contact body made cating that his well.” as would serve which opinion no Mr. Clark that opined He further door. doc- that crashworthiness disputing immediately the vehicle ejected from was case, to this applied not be should trine maximum at which point impact, upon Kentucky courts argues that Mrs. Clark exerted, the second and before force *17 the car upside down and been injury if free restrained his seat. moving forward. log One hit the roof of (also Id. at *2-*3 finding that plain- the the car with such force that the roof was tiffs experts had not proof adduced peeled upward back and on the driver’s the seat belt would have remained intact if side. log Another diagonally came the Jetta had located the emergency re- across the hood of the car from right the lease mechanism between the two front corner, front penetrated upper the left seats rather than near the door mounting, windshield, corner of the struck the another design alternative proposed by emergency seatbelt mechanism, release plaintiff). and then hit the driver’s side pillar. “pole-vaulted” The car log, Finally, the court found that O’Bryan stretching the door frame like a rubber prove did not that a defective door latch band and releasing the door latch. The injuries. caused his In reaching this con- log was carried with clusion, the vehicle ap- rejected the court proximately 55 feet. log The and vehi- of plaintiffs one experts, who testified that cle separated, then and the rear of the plaintiff would have been unhurt if he had regard in this case in evidence ear, having no basis. in the remained the defi- not suffer from causation does stated: court The ex- O’Bryan. found in As we ciencies roof after the condition Given above, evi- competent there was plained hit the Jetta fact that and the accident that Charles Clark before ‘pole of its dence at the terminus ground injured had he re- contin- not have been would position inverted in an vault’ ejection appears to in the car and that his roll, mained this assertion ued to in the a result of a defect the car was no factual basis. from have system. latch (also had not O’Bryan noting that *5 Id. at a more design for an alternative proposed that the infor-
crashworthy door lock and B. the evalua- regarding he submitted mation maintains that Chrysler also did not as a whole system the latch tion entering judgment court erred existing practices regarding data include regard of law in favor as a matter in its industry). within damages. jury’s punitive award of critically dif- O’Bryan facts The court, Chrysler the trial motion before its Here, this case. the facts- of from ferent was not entitled argued that Mrs. Clark produced has Mrs. Clark damages they because any punitive designs to alternative were feasible there jury’s award and because proven that would system K latch was excessive.2 damages such injuries. Mr. Mr. Clark’s prevented have simple fixes that several Gilberg testified failure bypass prevented have
would state-of-the-in- argument a state-of-the-art or Chrysler’s toAs allowed would not have dustry support latch insufficient evidence there was alterna- Many of the open. damages, door to come the court punitive award an Gilberg Mr. systems proposed Chrys tive denial of judge’s the trial reviews by vehicle manu- actually in use been had matter of judgment as a motion for ler’s to the time many years prior facturers it standards reviewed under the same law manufactured, e.g., Éam was Judgment above. substantive claims Benz by Mercedes “pie and cone” used if granted “should [therefore] was no more and which the 1950’s since proof complete there is absence oth- K latch. Mrs. Clark’s costly than the action, disput or if no issue material Peterson, demonstrated expert, er upon which reason issue of fact exists ed unsupported sheet between difference Morales, 151 could differ.” minds able by Chrysler and used B-pillar metal substi also cannot at 506. F.3d B-pillars used supported boxed jury; for that of judgment its tute *18 Motors, Toyota. and Ford, Nissan General rather, in the the evidence it must review from the B-pillar that if the testified He and she Mrs. Clark most favorable light to it B-pillar, had a boxed vehicle Clark infer every reasonable be accorded must not have twisted out. would Id. This court the evidence. from ence evidence, finds, all of after review of must be Finally, all of the evidence there was sufficient that Mrs. the fact light viewed not, ages award. JA at 59. for a new Chrysler did in its motion punitive dam- as to the seek remittitur 480 an support punitive
record to award of ing Mr. Clark. Mr. testimony Peterson’s damages. as to the inadequacies of B-pillar and the fact that it was insufficient with- case, parties
In agreed this on the stand low impact accidents supports such a jury instruction that was to given by be So, too, finding. does permitted jury the court. It to return problems with the Dodge Ram punitive damages B-pillar verdict for if the “con- Corporation easily duct could Chrysler have been designing, addressed as there manufacturing and marketing B-pillars the 1992 were in pickup trucks manufac- pickup truck gross constituted by tured others at the relevant time that negligence.” JA 463. The instruction were boxed supported at the area of in/or gross negligence defined as “a reckless the door Further, latch striker. Mr. Gil- disregard safety for the lives and of other berg testified that the latch in the 1992 persons, including Charles Clark.” Id. Dodge Ram was not state-of-the-art or Chrysler does not contend that this in- state-of-the-industry and that a state-of- erroneous, struction was and the instruc- the-industry latch would prevented have See, tion Kentucky accord with law. the accident. There were several e.g., Power, Light Horton v. Union designs being used in the in- automotive (Ky.1985).3 690 S.W.2d dustry at the relevant time which did not Ample experience bypass evidence was adduced at failure and which cost from which a reasonable no more than fact, could have the K In latch. Chrys- Chrysler concluded that showed ler itself reckless had utilized some of the other disregard others, for safety includ- latches in its vehicles. Mr. Gilberg also argues 3. The dissent negligence that the clear and proven con by convincing clear and vincing proof standard of found in K.R.S. § evidence. K.R.S. 411.184 states: § applies. 411.184 It is not clear that it does. plaintiff A punitive shall damages recover sought punitive That statute damages to limit only upon proving, by clear convincing malice, involving oppression to cases fraud or evidence, that the defendant from whom change plaintiff's and to proof standard of damages such sought acted toward the evidence, convincing opposed clear and plaintiff oppression, fraud or malice. preponderance to the traditional of the evi Since portion the malice of the statute is no dence McIntyre, standard. See M. Scott The longer applicable, convincing the clear and Kentucky’s Future Damages Punitive Statute would, statute, standard on the face of the Rights Jurisprudence: Jural A Call only apply punitive damage claims based Powers, Separation Ky. L.J. 719-20 Here, oppression. fraud and as the dis- (1999-2000) (discussing legislature's attempt acknowledges, sent sought puni- Mrs. Clark change applicable proof standard of damages tive gross on the negli- basis of claims). punitive damage Kentucky Su gence, and not oppression. fraud or Court, In this Wilson, preme in Williams v. circumstance, that, it argued could be bar- (Ky.1998), S.W.2d 260 por struck down that ring change further in the law the Ken- involving tion of the statute malice on the tucky legislature, not, case ground legislature predating law could under § employing 411.184 and Kentucky preponderance principles, supersede constitutional of the evidence right puni- law standard to proof common to recover on claims for gross damages negligence. tive gross negligence based While court in an un Wade, published opinion, applicable. v. would be Anderson 33 Fed. (6th Mar.29, 2002), event, Appx. any Cir. right indicated has waived the portions that other of the statute regarding were not raise an issue the standard of Williams, i.e., invalidated proof the sections re in this case since it did not raise below *19 lating oppression, to fraud and there any is noth before this court challenging issue the ing in the require statute which would a claim proof applied by standard of the district punitive damages for gross on the basis of court. the door to correlate proper it was inexpen- several there were that testified ejection. to risk of design latch could have K latch Chrysler the ways sive failure. bypass prevent fixed been jury’s to the supported evidence All of this with reck- Chrysler that acted conclusion the that addition, knew Chrysler In others, safety of disregard for less of no indication gave test FMVSS therefore Mr. Clark. The court including to subjected when B-pillar strength Chrys- of court’s denial affirms represen- Yet, Chrysler a force. twist-out matter of as a judgment motion for ler’s Group tes- Hardware Door from tative punitive claim on Mrs. law for latch not test did group his that tified it based on extent was damages to the twist-out. While involving B-pillar failures insufficiency of evidence. Group did the Structural that he stated tests, represen- Chrysler such perform actually Group from the Structural tative judg that maintains Chrysler also test for B- did not group that testified have been a matter of law should as ment Moreover, of a member twist-out. pillar to claim its favor as entered it that testified Safety Office award jury’s damages punitive because be B-pillar should a that well-known was Due to so excessive as violate was not), (the was B-pillar Ram’s boxed does This Clause. Process weak in metal “is piece of unboxed as an agree. at 279. JA every direction.” almost punitive of some award It is clear that impli- as to may so excessive damages at trial adduced also evidence There the Four- Due Process Clause cate the if a that driver Chrysler knew that Constitu- to the U.S. Amendment teenth multi- of death increased the risk ejected, said Supreme the U.S. Court As tion. Chrysler’s representatives Although fold. America, Gore, 517 Inc. v. North BMW the' that at trial emphasized experts 1589, 134 L.Ed.2d 116 S.Ct. U.S. important most seat belts was use (1996): there was ejections, to related variable " en- of fairness [elementary notions it made that at the time to show jurispru- in our constitutional shrined latch, Chrysler K utilize the to decision receive fair person that a dictates dence only 37% usage was that seat belt knew that will only of the conduct notice not as low 23% and was nationwide also of but punishment, him subject to no Kentucky where there like states a that State severity penalty showed evidence also law. The belt seat may impose. Advance sent an the NHTSA that a regard- that Rulemaking case, Professional the court found that Notice In to award was damages effort $2,000,000 punitive an latch standards door ing returned designed decrease where excessive standards grossly formulate award during damages open $4,000 compensatory through doors ejections failing reveal invited fraud BMW for against All manufacturers accidents. it automobile showed Chrysler’s response purchaser respond. reaching repainted. safety issues. had been bought these regarding no concern due violated the award con- Indeed, conclusion Chrysler’s witnesses (cid:127) fac- three considered the court questions response process, tinually reiterated (1) reprehensibility degree of design door tors: seeking information (2) between conduct; the ratio defendant’s ejection to risk of relationship its *20 plaintiffs compensatory damages husband’s awas substantial award; punitive award and the damages factor in causing Mr. injuries and (3) the difference between My the civil or death. colleagues on the panel do not criminal sanction that could be find imposed for this contention persuasive. Neither Id. do I. misconduct. branch, In the
In none
second
briefing
Chrysler
of
its
does
contends
Gore,
the evidence
why,
was insufficient
sup-
indicate
under
due
port an award
process
punitive
of
damages.
violation occurred in
Again
this case.
my
However,
colleagues on
panel
are unpersuad-
of
review the above-mentioned
ed.
I
part
Here must
company
them;
with
quickly
factors
reveals
this case is a
if my understanding
correct,
of
Here,
far
the law is
cry
Gore.
from
Chrysler’s con
question
punitive
damages
life,
duct
should
resulted
loss
never have been
submitted
clearly
greater
disregard
evidences
this case.
rights
safety
of others than failure
to reveal that a car
repainted.
has been
“The whole
punitive
issue of
damages is
The
between
disparity
jury’s
compen becoming an increasingly problematic
satory damages
punitive
award and its
one,” our court
in an en
observed
banc
damages award is also not comparable to
decision handed down
year
less than a
that in
Lastly,
Gore.
it can be
that au
said
before the
case at bar went to
“...
tomobile manufacturers are generally on as a
game-show
sort of
mentality leads
notice that their reckless
resulting
conduct
some contemporary juries to award puni-
trigger
death could
a substantial puni
tive damages in amounts
utterly
that seem
tive damages award.
In summary, we
capricious.” Moreno v. Consolidated Rail
say
cannot
punitive
damages
(6th
Corp.,
Cir.1996) (en
99 F.3d
award exceeds the constitutional
limit. banc) (footnote omitted). “Punitive dam-
damages may
“Punitive
properly
im
ages
an
pose
acute danger
arbitrary
posed
legitimate
to further a state’s
inter
deprivation
property,”
the Supreme
in punishing
ests
unlawful conduct and
Co.,
Court warned in Honda Motor
Ltd. v.
deterring
repetition.”
its
Id. at
116 Oberg,
415, 432,
U.S.
114 S.Ct.
S.Ct. 1589. The court
say
cannot
(1994),
VI. could raise serious constitutional questions, but ultimately could threaten Accordingly, reasons, the foregoing vitality continued of our liberal eco- judgment affirms the the trial nomic system. court. Kentucky Commonwealth of NELSON, DAVID A. Circuit Judge, no means unaware of these concerns.
concurring part dissenting part. 1988 the Commonwealth adopted tort re- Chrysler’s assignment initial of error form legislation designed to limit the re- branch, has two branches. In the first covery punitive damages to cases Chrysler contends that plaintiff, “by Mrs. clear and convincing evi- where — Clark, failed to introduce legally plaintiff dence”—the proves “that the de- sufficient to alleged show defect fendant from whom damages such the design of the door system sought her acted toward the op- plaintiff
483 by clear and convinc proved, that must KRS malice.” or fraud pression, may evidence, damages punitive before ing 411.184(2). fraud [and] “[Oppression, Kentucky? “op Absent that bar in terms be awarded defined malice” “fraud,” plaintiff which the negligence or damages pression” punitive of award here, actually intended proved to have not claim misconduct does or other with or not committed that to fall back injury teaches we are result to Williams plaintiffs to the law rule restated Kentucky indifference” common “flagrant that subjective awareness” Light, “a Heat & and v. Union rights thus in Horton (Ky. Co., result: 389-90 injury will 690 S.W.2d Power 1985): “(a) means conduct which ‘Oppression’ the defendant by intended specifically is damages justify punitive to “In order un- to cruel and plaintiff subject the failure to finding a must be first there hardship.
just care, an and then reasonable exercise misrep- an intentional (b) means ‘Fraud’ negligence that finding this additional resentation, deceit, or concealment or reckless accompanied by ‘wanton to the defendant known fact material lives, safety proper- or disregard for causing intention ” with the made and supplied.) (Emphasis ty others.’ injury plaintiff. us, it, I read mere before The record conduct which (c) either ‘Malice’ means finding garden-variety ly supports defendant by the intended specifically is I find in Chrysler’s part. negligence injury intangible tangible or cause convincing evi “clear and no the record that is carried or conduct plaintiff guilty of “wanton Chrysler was dence” that fla- with a both the defendant out for the lives disregard” or reckless rights of to the indifference grant shows, The record customers. safety of its subjective awareness and with plaintiff Chrys design of contrary, that the on the in human will result conduct such with compliance in full latch was ler’s door 411.184(1). bodily KRS or harm.” death Safety Standard Vehicle Federal Motor Wilson, 972 S.W.2d v. Williams States by the United promulgated Kentucky Supreme Court of (Ky.1998), door in an effort to assure Government 411.184(1)(c) unconstitu to be KRS held least, contexts,” at “In most safety. doc Kentucky’s “jural rights under tional statutory standard with a “... compliance no expressed The Williams trine.” damages.” punitive liability for bar should constitutionality of KRS as to opinion al., Keeton et Prosser Page Keeton W. con 411.184(2), “clear and requires (5th Torts, § n. 41 at on the Law of punitive the award evidence” for vincing Ed.1984). 411.184(2) KRS I damages. presume Wade, Anderson v. See constitutional. shows further The record (6th Cir.2002), unpub an Fed.Appx. 750 seatbelt its truck equipped we ana court where of this decision lished Mr. Clark’s have undoubtedly would saved cases and Kentucky pertinent lyzed Virtually any only used it. if he had life dam Kentucky punitive concluded if mis- injury death cause product can law “with good remains ages statute up, used, failure to buckle by his 411.184(1)(c).” Id. of KRS exception truck failing to use Clark the manufacturer. manner intended though it truth, 411.184(1)(c) uncomfortable The hard KRS demise of With so, anyone if is that say may be “malice,” what is it definition of and its situation, reckless in it was Mr.- Clark
himself, Chrysler. *22 law Kentucky
Under the and the find- case,
ings in this must $235,000
pay more than in compensatory
damages go beyond for its failure to what required of it the Federal Motor Safety
Vehicle Standards. As indicated
above, I problem have no with this. I however, problem,
have a serious with the Kentucky’s judicial
use of system to relieve
Chrysler of an additional million—more $3
than 12 times the compensato- recoverable
ry damages supposed its recklessness —for in failing equip the truck with a door
latch that would spared have Mr. Clark
the inconvenience of buckling his seatbelt.
Accordingly, although I concur in most
of Judge Oliver’s opinion, well-written I
respectfully dissent from Part BV of the
opinion and from the affirmance of the $3
million punitive damage award. JOHNSON;
Patricia Michael Au
France, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v. CINCINNATI,
CITY OF Defendant-
Appellant.
No. 00-4477.
United States Appeals, Court of
Sixth Circuit.
Argued Feb. 2002.
Decided and Sept. Filed
Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing
En Banc Denied Jan. 2003.*
* Judge grant rehearing Gilman would for the reasons stated in his dissent. notes doctrine and adopted the have never they when the vehicles contact between which cases are a number that there JA 313. “side-slapped.” issues precedent relevant serve as dis- does not court. at before the produced was evidence Finally, there acknowledged O’Bryan pute that did Clark that Mr. to establish adopted have Kentucky courts his thorax injuries to crash receive massive Indeed, it cites doctrine. crashworthiness investigating vehicle. The inside the while should the court why in favor this fact examina- upon testified that police officer O’Bryan precedent look to for applying car dug into ground, causing it to Kentucky the doctrine under law. rotate the opposite direction. As the Jetta fell ground, toward the O’Bryan Where the crashworthiness doc ejected from the Moving car. applies, trine a plaintiff prove, must inter slightly vehicle, ahead of the he came to practicable, feasible, alia: that there is a ground rest on the finally the Jetta safe, design; alternative the design landed top of him. Estimates as to would have remedied the problem; and the total distance traveled the vehicle defects, that in alleged the absence of the marks) (including yaw varied from 260 the decedent would not injured have been feet to 282 feet. or would have incurred injury. less of an Assuming, Id. without deciding, that Id. at *2. Kentucky adopt courts would the crash- At O’Bryan’s experts offered testi- doctrine, worthiness this court finds that mony that the door and seat belt in the Mrs. proven Clark has causation under the Jetta were defective and that a motorized doctrine as well as under other existing track above the door would provided have principles of causation Kentucky under a practicable design alternative that would law. have prevented plaintiffs injuries. In OBryan, plaintiff, a 16-year old However, in reversing verdict boy, seriously injured when he drove favor of O’Bryan, this court found that Volkswagen Jetta off the road at an there proof was no that this alternate de- excessive rate of speed. He sued Volks- sign prevented harm, would have wagen, maintaining injuries is, “that the motorized attachment would he suffered were caused by a defective not have activated when the door flew seat belt and door latch. The court open this accident.” Id. The court stat- case described the accident as follows: ed further that: road, leaving After the car crossed ditch, over embankment, struck an given the fact that one log peeled back embankment, climbed the and struck the roof of the car and the car continued two or three of a group of large three that, to roll after it was incumbent on logs at top At embankment. plaintiff to prove that he would have point