Jacobs v. American Motors Corp.

Citation787 F.2d 590
PartiesUnpublished Disposition NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. MICHAEL JACOBS, a minor by his natural friends and natural guardians, DONALD JACOBS and DELORES JACOBS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. AMERICAN MOTORS CORPORATION, JEEP CORPORATION, AMERICAN MOTORS SALES CORPORATION, JEEP DIVISION, Defendants-Appellees. 85-5234
Decision Date13 March 1986
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

AFFIRMED

E.D.Tenn.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee

Before: KRUPANSKY and GUY, Circuit Judges, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs (Jacobs) appeal from the granting of a directed verdict at the close of plaintiffs' proofs in this products liability diversity action. On a motion for directed verdict, a district court in the exercise of diversity jurisdiction applies the standard for review used by the courts of the state whose substantive law governs the action. We review the granting of a directed verdict by the application of the same standard. Arms v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 731 F.2d 1245, 1248 (6th Cir. 1984). The law of Tennessee requires that a trial court, faced with a motion for a directed verdict, must

take the strongest legitimate view of the evidence in favor of the opponent of the motion, allow all reasonable inferences in his or her favor, discard all countervailing evidence, and deny the motion where there is any doubt as to the conclusion to be draw[n] from the whole evidence. A verdict should not be directed during, or after, trial except where a reasonable mind could draw but one conclusion. Holmes v. Wilson, 551 S.W.2d 682, 685 (Tenn. 1977). See also Sauls v. Evans, 635 S.W.2d 377, 379 (Tenn. 1982); Crosslin v. Alsup, 594 S.W.2d 379, 380 (Tenn. 1980).

Applying this standard to the record in the case at bar, we conclude that the trial court was correct in granting a directed verdict in favor of defendants, and we affirm.

I.

On April 10, 1983, 15 year old Michael Jacobs and three friends were travelling on Panther Springs Road in Hamblen County, Tennessee, when the jeep Jacobs was driving rounded a curve, left the road, and struck a tree. Due to his faculties being impaired by alcohol at the time of the accident and due to impairments suffered as a result of the accident, Jacobs was unable to furnish any details of significance relative to the accident. His three companions were also unable to supply any details about the accident, except one of them, Brad Sheridan, who was able to confirm that the jeep rounded a curve, left the road, and struck a tree. 1 Since the jeep occupants were unable to furnish further information about the accident, this void was filled at trial by two sources: Captain Blaine Hartsell of the Hamblen County Sheriff's Department, and John Noettl, a vehicle and highway safety expert who testified for the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs went to trial on the theory that the jeep, manufactured and sold by defendants and driven by young Jacobs, had a design defect--a tendency to roll over at speeds as low as 20 miles per hour, and that that defect was a proximate cause of Jacobs' accident. For purposes of the directed verdict motion, it was conceded that plaintiffs had put in enough evidence to get to a jury on design defect, and the issue on which the motion turned was whether this design defect was a proximate cause of Jacobs' injuries. 2

II.

Although the trial judge granted the directed verdict accompanied by only brief oral comment from the bench (App. 93-94), it is clear that the basis of his decision was that although plaintiff's expert had testified that these jeeps had a propensity to roll over and could have rolled over under these circumstances, he could not support this theory with any physical evidence that the jeep had rolled over. On the other hand, the investigating police officer, based on a physical investigation of the scene, testified that right after the accident he was able to observe rolling tire marks from all four wheels of the jeep leading from the edge of the pavement all the way to the tree (App. 21). If the record supports this finding, then clearly the trial judge was correct, since, on the issue of proximate cause, the question is n t what the vehicle might have done due to its inherent design defect but, rather, what actually occurred if that can be ascertained. An examination of the trial record reveals the following relative to Noettl's and Hartsell's testimony.

Since the plaintiffs had to establish a design defect through Noettl, the bulk of his testimony concerned his opinions relative to the design of the jeep CJ-5 and his conclusion that the design was defective primarily due to a high center of gravity. Noettl also opined that the design was a direct cause of the accident. Specifically on this point he testified:

Should, for any reason, the vehicle, if it made some maneuvers prior to this point, in which the police report shows the vehicle leaving the road, it would be my opinion that the, if the vehicle got off on the shoulder and left steering was put into the vehicle, and that is sharp left steering, to get back onto this narrow road, that you'd have immediate wheel lift-up and you would proceed in this manner down to the resting place of the vehicle against the tree. And it's my opinion, from looking at the damage to the vehicle, the scene reports, that the tree actually kept the vehicle from continuing its roll mode.

(App. 76-77; emphasis added.)

A literal reading of the above makes it clear that Noettl was testifying to what could have occurred if certain things happened. However, the cross-examination of Noettl makes it clear that he had no idea whether these things occurred.

Q. I'm going to limit my questions not to why you think the jeep is defective, not to why you think there's something wrong with the jeep, but, I'm going to limit my questions to what physical facts do you have in this case that supports your opinion that this jeep traveled in the manner that you've just described to the jury, okay, sir?

A. Yes.

* * *

* * *

Q. Then it was sometime between August of '84 and December of '84 when you formed your opinion that you've expressed to the jury in this case, is that correct, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, at that time that you reconstructed this accident and developed your opinion which you have just given to the jury today in this case, had you calculated the speed of the jeep?

A. No, I did not calculate the speed of the jeep.

Q. Okay. Number two, did you know whether the jeep had ever gone into the left lane of traffic prior to this accident?

A. No, not, I don't know that for sure, whether it went into the left lane or not.

Q. Okay. If it went into the left lane, you didn't know how long it stayed in the left lane?

A. That's correct.

Q. If it stayed in the left lane and went back to the right lane, you don't know how long it traveled to get back to the right lane?

A. That's correct.

Q. If it stayed in the right lane, you don't know for how long it had been in the right lane before it went off onto the shoulder of the road?

A. That is correct.

Q. You didn't know whether there were any marks on the roadway, the paved portion of the roadway?

A. That's correct.

Q. You didn't know whether there were any skid marks on the paved portion of the roadway in August of 1984 when you formed your opinion in this case?

A. That's correct.

Q. You didn't know whether there were, was any gouge marks on the roadway, or scuff marks on the roadway, skid marks on the roadway in August of 1984 when you formed your opinion?

A. Well, the police report indicates marks at about 63 feet from the tree, so that is all the information I had about marks.

Q. So then you didn't know the existence of any gouge marks, tire marks, skid marks, or any other kind of marks with regard to the pavement, when you made up your mind about how this accident took place in August of 1984, is that correct, sir?

A. That is correct.

Q. Nor did you know of any marks that were on the shoulder of the road; skid marks, tire marks, scuff marks, any other kind of marks, when you made up your opinion in 1984?

A. That is correct. There was no evidence of that.

Q. Nor did you know of any skid marks, gouge marks, tire marks, any kind of marks on the embankment until the vehicle struck the tree, when you made up your opinion in August of 1984, is that correct, sir?

A. Yes.

* * *

* * *

Q. (BY MR. WOOLF) You did not know the lateral acceleration of the curve, did you, the lateral acceleration that the jeep or any vehicle would be subjected to as it came around the curve, did you?

A. I may have calculated that. It isn't the curve; you have to consider the vehicle and a speed.

Q. That's right, and since you didn't know the speed you couldn't calculate the lateral acceleration, could you?

* * *

* * *

A. Not the lateral accelerations, no.

Q. Okay. And the lateral acceleration tells you whether or not it exceeds or doesn't exceed the rollover threshold of any vehicle, doesn't it?

A. I don't understand your question.

Q. You have to get the lateral acceleration of a vehicle above its rollover threshold before anything can happen to that vehicle, whether it's a jeep, or passenger car, or truck?

A. You have to get the forces that are acting laterally through the jeep to equal the friction forces that the wheels are experiencing, and that has to be at a level that the vehicle will roll over.

Q. And you did not do that at the time you made up your opinion in this case?

A. No.

* * *

* * *

Q. All right. Then I asked you in your Deposition, 'Did you believe that the left side wheels were off the ground?'

A. Yes.

Q. And you said, yes, you did?

A. Yes.

Q. All right, and I asked you, 'Were the left...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT