Bass v. General Motors Corp.

• Decision Date: 24 July 1998
• Docket Number: No. 97-2723,97-2723
• Citation: 150 F.3d 842
• Parties: Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 15,300 Jerry M. BASS; Bonnie Bass, Appellees, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 842

150 F.3d 842

Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 15,300

Jerry M. BASS; Bonnie Bass, Appellees, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Appellant.

No. 97-2723.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 12, 1998.

Decided July 24, 1998.

Jordan B. Cherrick, St. Louis, MO, argued (Ann E. Buckley and Carol A. Platt, St. Louis, MO, on the brief), for Appellant.

William H. Pickett, Kansas City, MO, argued (David T. Greis, Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for Appellee.

Before WOLLMAN and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, ¹ District Judge.

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

General Motors Corporation appeals from the judgment entered by the district court ² on the jury verdict in favor of Jerry M. Bass and Bonnie Bass on their claim of strict product liability. General Motors contends that the district court erred in denying its alternative motions for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial. General Motors also contends that the court erred in refusing to dismiss this action with prejudice as a sanction for the Basses' failure to preserve relevant evidence. Because the record contains sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, and because we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's ruling on sanctions, we affirm.

I.

On June 10, 1986, Jerry Bass was returning to his home in Columbia, Missouri, in his wife's 1986 Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera when he observed an approaching Dodge sedan in the opposing lane. The driver of the Dodge seemed to lose control of the vehicle, and it swerved across the road into the oncoming lane, colliding with Bass's vehicle and causing the Ciera to strike a third vehicle parked on the side of the street. Bass was thrown forward into the windshield, striking his head and leaving a jagged "starburst" imprint on the glass. He suffered a closed head injury, resulting in permanent damage to the brain. The driver of the Dodge, a young male, fled the scene of the accident on foot and was never identified or apprehended by police. ³

The Basses originally filed this action in the circuit court of Jackson County, Missouri. The suit was voluntarily dismissed and subsequently refiled in district court. The Basses prosecuted the case on the theory that the seatbelt system in the Ciera was designed with a dangerous structural defect. The seatbelt system incorporated what General Motors termed a "window shade comfort feature," ⁴ a device that permitted the retractor spring to be compromised, eliminating the constant tension that would otherwise exist, and allowing for excessive slack to develop in the shoulder strap of the driver's seatbelt. According to the Basses' theory, when excessive slack is allowed to develop, the seatbelt becomes too loose to restrain the driver properly, resulting in diminished protection and a greater risk of serious injury in the event of an accident. The Basses contended that this alleged design defect caused or enhanced the injuries Jerry Bass suffered in the accident. They sought to hold General Motors liable for those injuries under theories of negligence and strict product liability. ⁵

After the district court resolved a dispute involving sanctions, the details of which are set forth later in this opinion, the case proceeded to trial. At the close of plaintiffs' case, General Motors moved for judgment as a matter of law, which the court denied. The court denied a similar motion by General Motors at the close of all evidence, but did rule that the Basses could not submit a claim for punitive damages to the jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of General Motors on the negligence claim and in favor of the Basses on their strict product liability claim, awarding $1,170,000 to Jerry Bass for his injuries and $75,000 to Bonnie Bass for loss of consortium. The court entered judgment on the verdicts, denying a renewed motion by General Motors for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, a new trial.

II.

We review a motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo, applying the same standard as that employed by the district court. See Manning v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., Inc., 127 F.3d 686, 689 (8th Cir.1997). A post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law requires the court to determine whether the record contains sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. See McKnight v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 36 F.3d 1396, 1400 (8th Cir.1994). "In determining whether a plaintiff has made a submissible case, we must examine the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and view all inferences in his or her favor." Pree v. Brunswick Corp., 983 F.2d 863, 866 (8th Cir.1993). "Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate only when all of the evidence points one way and is 'susceptible of no reasonable inference sustaining the position of the nonmoving party.' " McKnight, 36 F.3d at 1400 (quoting White v. Pence, 961 F.2d 776, 779 (8th Cir.1992)).

The denial of motion for a new trial under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a) is reviewed with great deference to the district court's ruling and will not be reversed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. See McKnight, 36 F.3d at 1400. "The key question is whether a new trial should have been granted to avoid a miscarriage of justice." Id.

General Motors claims that the Basses failed to establish a submissible claim for strict product liability based on the theory variously known as "enhanced injury," "second collision," or "crashworthiness" liability. As we explained in Polk v. Ford Motor Co.:

The second collision doctrine, enhanced injury doctrine, or defect-enhancing doctrine, as it is variously called, is the legal concept which imposes liability based on the construction or design of a product which causes enhanced or greater injuries in the course of or following an initial accident or collision brought about by some independent cause.

529 F.2d 259, 264 (8th Cir.1976) (en banc); see also Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d 377, 383 (8th Cir.1992).

This doctrine has its roots in Larsen v. General Motors Corp., 391 F.2d 495 (8th Cir.1968), in which we held that an automobile manufacturer "is under a duty to use reasonable care in the design of its vehicle to avoid subjecting the user to an unreasonable risk of injury in the event of a collision." Id. at 502. In explaining the potential liabilities of an automobile manufacturer that failed to exercise reasonable care in the design and construction of a vehicle, we stated:

Any design defect not causing the accident would not subject the manufacturer to liability for the entire damage, but the manufacturer should be liable for that portion of the damage or injury caused by the defective design over and above the damage or injury that probably would have occurred as a result of the impact or collision absent the defective design.

Id. at 503 (emphasis supplied).

Since Larsen, two competing frameworks have emerged. In Huddell v. Levin, 537 F.2d 726 (3d Cir.1976), the Third Circuit explained that in an enhanced injury or crashworthy case a plaintiff must prove: (1) that a practicable alternative, safer design existed; (2) what injuries, if any, would have resulted if the alternative, safer design had been used; and (3) some method of establishing the extent of enhanced injuries attributable to the defective design. See id. at 737-38. The court rejected the idea that a manufacturer might be liable for the totality of a plaintiff's injuries if those injuries were deemed indivisible: "We simply do not accept the proposition that suing for wrongful death suffices to convert limited, second collision, enhanced injuries liability into plenary liability for the entire consequences of an accident which the automobile manufacturer played no part in precipitating." Id. at 739.

The second approach is reflected in Mitchell v. Volkswagenwerk, AG, 669 F.2d 1199 (8th Cir.1982), in which we predicted that in an enhanced injury liability case involving an indivisible injury, the Minnesota courts would reject the rationale of Huddell, see id. at 1207-08, as well as the notion that an injured victim should have the burden of proving the injuries he probably would have suffered in an accident absent the alleged defect:

Thus we conclude that under Minnesota law the plaintiffs' burden of proof should be deemed satisfied against the manufacturer if it is shown that the design defect was a substantial factor in producing damages over and above those which were probably caused as a result of the original impact or collision. Furthermore, the extent of the manufacturer's liability depends upon whether or not the injuries involved are divisible such that the injuries can be clearly separated and attributed either to the manufacturer or the original tortfeasor. If the manufacturer's negligence is found to be a substantial factor in causing an indivisible injury such as paraplegia, death, etc., then absent a reasonable basis to determine which wrongdoer actually caused the harm, the defendants should be treated as joint and several tortfeasors.

Id. at 1206.

General Motors contends that the standard of proof for enhanced injury or second collision liability articulated in Larsen was not met because the Basses failed to prove the extent to which, if at all, any alleged defect in the Ciera's seatbelt system enhanced the injuries that Jerry Bass would have otherwise suffered as a result of the accident. General Motors further maintains that it can be held liable only for those enhanced injuries proven to have been caused by the alleged defect, rather than Bass's injuries as a whole.

Missouri law controls in this diversity action. See American Eagle Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 85 F.3d 327, 330 (8th Cir.1996). We review the district court's interpretation of Missouri law de novo. See Salve Regina College v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 231-32, 111 S.Ct. 1217, 113 L.Ed.2d 190 (1991). In resolving any substantive issues of state law, we are bound by the decisions of...