Palmer v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2001-CT-00875-SCT Linked Case(s): 2001-CA-00875-COA ; 2001-CT-00875-SCT ; 2001-CT-00875-SCT ; 2001-CT-00875-SCT ; 2001-CA-00875-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-07-2005 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HINDS COUNTY IS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Inadequate warnings - Picture from owner’s manual - National Transportation and Safety Board recommendations - Videos - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Seat belt use Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Easley, J. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH Writ of Certiorari: Granted Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-28-2001 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: Directed verdict for defendants on the claims of negligence, breach of warranty, and defective manufacture. Jury verdict for the defendants on claims of defective design and inadequate warnings. Case Number: 251-98-1112CIV |
|
| Note: | The motion for rehearing filed by appellants is denied. The original opinions are withdrawn, and these opinions are substituted therefor. In the supreme court's summation of it's opinion it stated: "the Inadequate warnings cannot serve as the proximate cause of injuries where adequate warnings would have resulted in the same injuries. Where a plaintiff claims inadequate warnings, the defendant must be allowed to introduce evidence which would tend to persuade a jury that, even if the warnings had been adequate, the plaintiff would not have heeded them. Where, as here, evidence of non-use of seat belts is offered for that purpose, and provided it passes all other tests of admissibility, it may be admitted. The trial court should caution the jury and instruct it on the limited use of the evidence. In this case, the trial court was correct to admit the evidence, but should have given a cautionary instruction. On remand, however, the adequacy of warnings will not be an issue, and the evidence of seat belt use by the Palmer family (other than Jennifer) will not be relevant." | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Randal R. Palmer and Lynn I. Palmer Individually and on behalf of Anne Palmer, a Minor |
MICHAEL J. MALOUF, JR., MICHAEL JAMES MALOUF |
||
| Appellee: | Volkswagen of America, Inc., Van-Trow Volkswagen, Inc., Volkswagen A.G. a/k/a Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft and Volkswagen de Mexico, S. A. de C. V. a/k/a Volkswagen of Mexico | J. COLLINS WOHNER, JR., ROBERT H. PEDERSEN, DAVID L. AYERS, JIMMY B. WILKINS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Wrongful death - Inadequate warnings - Picture from owner’s manual - National Transportation and Safety Board recommendations - Videos - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Seat belt use |
| Summary of the Facts: | The motions for rehearing are denied, and these opinions are substituted for the original opinions. The family of Jennifer Palmer filed suit against Volkswagen of America, Van-Trow Volkswagen, Inc., Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, and Volkswagen de Mexico, alleging claims for negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, and violation of the Mississippi Product Liability Act, after Jennifer died from injuries caused by an air bag. The court directed a verdict for defendants on the plaintiffs’ claims of negligence, breach of warranty, and defective manufacture, and submitted the case to the jury on the issues of defective design and inadequate warnings. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants on both claims, with a unanimous defense verdict on defective design, and a vote of eleven to one, in favor of the defendants on the claim of inadequate warnings. The plaintiffs’ appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the directed verdicts granted to the defendants, and affirmed some of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, but reversed others and remanded the case for a new trial. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Picture from owner’s manual The trial court allowed the defendants to remove a picture found on one page of the Owner’s Manual for the Jetta, which depicted a small child in a child seat, facing backward, in the front passenger seat, and a caption under the picture. The defendants provided warnings regarding the air bags in two places: on the sun visors and in the Owners’ Manual. The Court of Appeals found these warnings to be confusing, misleading and thus defective. The picture, according to the Court of Appeals, renders the Owner’s Manual even more confusing, misleading and defective. The defendants argue that the warnings in the Owner’s Manual and on the sun visors were adequate and, even if they weren’t, the plaintiffs by their own admission did not read or rely on them. The Court of Appeals’ statement that the Palmers “introduced evidence that they would have noticed and heeded an alternative warning” completely ignores the fact that the Palmers admitted that they didn’t read the manual. Having not read the manual, the Palmers would not have “noticed and heeded an alternative warning,” an adequate warning, the picture, or anything else in the manual. The presence or absence of anything in an unread owner’s manual cannot proximately cause a plaintiff’s damages. The plaintiffs do not argue that it was improper for defendants to place air bag warnings in the owner’s manual. They do, however, assert that the warning on the sun visor was inadequate to direct the owner (and others) to the manual. This is an argument best suited for the jury, and the inadequate warnings claim (including the claim that the sun visor warning was inadequate) was rejected by the jury in this case. Given that the jury rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that the sun visor warning was defective and that the Palmers did not read the owner’s manual, the trial court’s exclusion of a picture and caption, located within the manual, was not an abuse of discretion. Issue 2: National Transportation and Safety Board recommendations On November 2, 1995, the National Transportation and Safety Board informed automobile manufacturers by letter of seven accidents in which small children were killed or seriously injured by air bags and that parents were not being adequately warned of the danger posed by air bags to children. The plaintiffs argue that the court erred in preventing the Palmers from using this letter to cross-examine one of defendants’ witnesses and one of defendants’ experts. With regard to the witness, there is no indication that plaintiffs attempted to use the letter to cross-examine him. With regard to the expert, counsel for plaintiffs did not suggest or proffer the purpose for which he wished to use the letter nor did he attempt to authenticate the letter, or proffer any proof that the letter was even received by defendants. While the letter arguably had probative value as some evidence that the public needed to be warned that small children (such as Jennifer) should not ride in the front passenger seat without using the seat belt restraints, Jennifer’s father freely admitted that the entire family, including Jennifer, knew they were supposed to use the seat belts. Therefore, the probative value of the letter is not such that it could rise above harmless error. Issue 3: Videos The court allowed the defendants to show the jury three videos which depicted several sled tests with dummy occupants. The plaintiffs argue that there are too many differences in the staged demonstration and the real accident, rendering the videos prejudicial and misleading. These matters are left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Issue 4: Expert testimony The trial court held that the plaintiffs’ expert in human factors and warnings could not testify regarding the dangers presented by air bags to young children. In many cases, experts must stray slightly from their field of expertise to arrive at opinions and conclusions. However, the area found by the trial court to be off limits involved an evaluation by the expert of the extent of the danger posed by the Jetta’s air bags, and then matching that danger with an appropriate warning. This clearly was outside his expertise, and such opinions and testimony was properly excluded. In their designation of experts, plaintiffs named Myrna Kruckenburg as a fact and expert witness to testify to tthe extent and nature of injuries sustained by plaintiffs and the treatment rendered. Plaintiffs further stated that they had not yet received Mr. and Mrs. Kruckenburgs’ curriculum vitae or estimated cost for deposition or trial testimony. Plaintiffs stated they were not in possession of any reports by Mr. and Mrs. Kruckenburg. No other information was provided to defendants prior to trial. At trial, the court refused to allow any testimony from Ms. Kruckenburg. The Court of Appeals found that the trial judge abused his discretion. Parties who file appropriate interrogatories seeking expert information do not acquire the additional burden of filing a motion to compel, where they are provided an answer which promises supplementation. Therefore, the trial court was well within its discretion in disallowing the testimony of Ms. Kruckenburg. The trial court precluded one of the defendant’s witnesses from testifying as an expert, but allowed him to testify as a lay witness. Throughout his testimony, the witness was asked to make and explain highly technical calculations, and then apply his results to industry standards and to explain why the testing and calculations he approved were necessary. M.R.E. 702 does not limit expert testimony to that which is expressed in the form of opinion. The testimony provided by the witness, a highly-skilled, specially educated engineer, very definitely required scientific, technical knowledge beyond that of the randomly selected adult. Such testimony therefore constituted expert testimony. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly found that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing this testimony to stray into the realm of scientific, technical and specialized knowledge that only could be admitted as expert testimony. Issue 5: Seat belt use Defendants introduced evidence tending to show that the Palmer family did not regularly use their seat belts. The Court of Appeals found that Jennifer's seat belt use was admissible, but the rest of the family's was not. Where a plaintiff claims inadequate warnings, the defendant must be allowed to introduce evidence which would tend to persuade a jury that, even if the warnings had been adequate, the plaintiff would not have heeded them. Where, as here, evidence of non-use of seat belts is offered for that purpose, and provided it passes all other tests of admissibility, it may be admitted. The court should caution the jury and instruct it on the limited use of the evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
