Adams v. Toyota Motor Corp.
| Decision Date | 11 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 15-2636, No. 15-2516,No. 15-2507, No. 15-2635, No. 15-2638, No. 15-2637, No. 15-2511,15-2507 |
| Citation | 867 F.3d 903 |
| Parties | Jassmine D. ADAMS, Plaintiff–Appellee State of Minnesota, Department of Human Services; UCare Minnesota; Medica Health Plans, Intervenor Plaintiffs–Appellees v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.; Toyota Motor North America, Inc.; Toyota Motor Engineering and Manufacturing North America, Inc.; Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc.; Calty Design Research, Inc., Defendants–Appellants Bridgette Trice, as trustee for the heirs and next of kin of Devyn Bolton, Deceased Plaintiff–Appellee Koua Fong Lee; Nhia Koua Lee; Nong Lee; Panghoua Moua; Jemee Lee, a minor child; American Family Mutual Insurance Company, as subrogee of Koua Fong Lee; State of Minnesota, Department of Human Services; UCare Minnesota; Medica Health Plans Intervenor Plaintiffs–Appellees v. Toyota Motor Corporation; Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.; Toyota Motor North America, Inc.; Toyota Motor Engineering and Manufacturing North America, Inc.; Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc.; Calty Design Research, Inc. Defendants–Appellants Quincy Ray Adams, Plaintiff–Appellee State of Minnesota, Department of Human Services; UCare Minnesota; Medica Health Plans, Intervenor Plaintiffs–Appellees v. Toyota Motor Corporation; Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.; Toyota Motor North America, Inc.; Toyota Motor Engineering and Manufacturing North America, Inc.; Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc.; Calty Design Research, Inc., Defendants–Appellants Jassmine D. Adams, Plaintiff–Appellant State of Minnesota, Department of Human Services; UCare Minnesota; Medica Health Plans, Intervenor Plaintiffs v. Toyota Motor Corporation; Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.; Toyota Motor North America, Inc.; Toyota Motor Engineering and Manufacturing North America, Inc.; Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc.; Calty Design Research, Inc., Defendants–Appellees Bridgette Trice, as trustee for the heirs and next of kin of Devyn Bolton, deceased, Plaintiff–Appellant Koua Fong Lee; Nhia Koua Lee; Nong Lee; Panghoua Moua; Jemee Lee, a minor child; American Family Mutual Insurance Company, as subrogee of Koua Fong Lee; State of Minnesota, Department of Human Services; UCare Minnesota; Medica Health Plans, Intervenor Plaintiffs v. Toyota Motor Corporation; Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.; Toyota Motor North America, Inc.; Toyota Motor Engineering and Manufacturing North America, Inc.; Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc.; Calty Design Research, Inc., Defendants–Appellees Bridgette Trice, as trustee for the heirs and next of kin of Devyn Bolton, deceased, Plaintiff Koua Fong Lee; Nhia Koua Lee; Nong Lee; Panghoua Moua; Jemee Lee, a minor child, Intervenor Plaintiffs–Appellants American Family Mutual Insurance Company, as subrogee of Koua Fong Lee; State of Minnesota, Department of Human Services; UCare Minnesota; Medica Health Plans, Intervenor Plaintiffs v. Toyota Motor Corporation; Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.; Toyota Motor North America, Inc.; Toyota Motor Engineering and Manufacturing North America, Inc.; Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc.; Calty Design Research, Inc., Defendants–Appellees Quincy Ray Adams, Plaintiff–Appellant State of Minnesota, Department of Human Services; UCare Minnesota; Medica Health Plans, Intervenor Plaintiffs v. Toyota Motor Corporation; Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.; Toyota Motor North America, Inc.; Toyota Motor Engineering and Manufacturing North America, Inc.; Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc.; Calty Design Research, Inc., Defendants–Appellees |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Counsel who filed the petition for panel rehearing for Appellee/Cross–Appellant Bridgette Trice were Eric Magnuson of Minneapolis, MN, W.B. Markovits, Paul M. De Marco, Louise M. Roselle, and Eric J. Kmetz of Cincinnati, OH, and Kenneth R. White of Mankato, MN.
Counsel who filed the response for Appellants/Cross–Appellees Toyota to the petition for panel rehearing were David W. Grave, Jr., Bard D. Borkon, John D. Sear, Theodore Dorenkamp III, and Nathan J. Marcusen of Minneapolis, MN, and Robert A. Brundage and Nocolette L. Young of San Francisco, CA.
Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
On June 10, 2006, Koua Fong Lee was driving his 1996 Toyota Camry on the interstate. When Lee exited the interstate, the Camry failed to come to a stop and rear-ended another car waiting at a stoplight, killing three of the other car's five passengers and injuring others, including those in Lee's vehicle. Lee was convicted of vehicular homicide, but his conviction was vacated after Toyota recalled several models of their Camry for issues related to unintended acceleration, ultimately leading to new evidence in Lee's case.
Family members of the deceased filed a lawsuit against Toyota in state court in 2010, alleging, among other things, personal injury and wrongful death based on strict product liability, and Lee eventually joined as a plaintiff. Following a four-week trial, a jury found Lee 40 percent and Toyota 60 percent at fault for the collision. The district court entered judgment on June 25, 2015. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
In June 2006, after attending several family events in Minneapolis, Lee was driving his 1996 Toyota Camry eastbound on the interstate from Minneapolis toward St. Paul with his pregnant wife, their young daughter, his father, and his brother. He was going around 65 miles per hour. He exited the interstate at the Snelling Avenue ramp, which had a slight incline leading up to an intersection. Lee testified that he pressed on the accelerator as he went up the ramp and pushed on the brake at the top of the incline, approximately 600 feet from the intersection.
Lee and his passengers explained that as Lee approached the intersection, he pumped the brakes and yelled that they were not working. The Camry was going approximately 75 miles per hour when it rear-ended an Oldsmobile Ciera that was waiting at a red light, pushing the Oldsmobile into oncoming traffic. The Oldsmobile's driver, Javis Trice–Adams, and Trice–Adams' six-year-old son, Javis Jr., died at the scene of the collision. Quincy Adams, Trice–Adams' father, was seated in the front passenger seat and suffered a traumatic brain injury. Trice–Adams' niece, six-year-old Devyn Bolton, was seated in the middle of the back seat. Upon impact, she ceased breathing and her heart stopped beating. Paramedics revived her in the ambulance, though she stayed in a coma for a period of weeks. Devyn was rendered quadriplegic, and though she was able to fully regain her mental faculties, she died from respiratory complications arising from her quadriplegia approximately a year after the accident. Finally, Jassmine Adams, Trice–Adams' thirteen-year-old daughter, was seated in the back passenger seat of the car. Her leg was crushed by the impact, but she survived. Occupants of Lee's car were also injured, but all survived. In 2007, Lee was charged with vehicular homicide. Though he alleged at trial that the Camry's brakes were not working, he was convicted and sentenced to eight years in prison.
In 2010, Toyota recalled several models of their Camry—not including the 1996 Camry Lee was driving at the time of the accident—for issues related to unintended acceleration.1 Lee filed a petition for post-conviction relief in state court based on new information about instances of unintended acceleration in 1995 and 1996 Camrys, and his conviction was ultimately vacated. Prosecutors did not appeal or pursue additional criminal charges, and Lee was released after being incarcerated for over two years.
Family members of the deceased filed this product liability lawsuit against Toyota in state court in 2010, alleging that a defect in Lee's Camry's acceleration system led to the collision and resultant injuries. Lee eventually joined as a plaintiff. Toyota removed the case to federal court. Prior to trial, the district court ruled on a number of motions, including Toyota's motion to exclude evidence of other similar instances of unintended acceleration (OSIs) and Toyota's motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' mechanical engineering expert, John Stilson.2 The court allowed the plaintiffs to present OSI evidence, but required the plaintiffs to reduce their proposed witnesses to "a list of a much smaller number ... whose testimony is most similar," ultimately limiting the plaintiffs to three OSI witnesses. Each OSI witness testified that he was driving a 1996 Toyota Camry with over 100,000 miles on it when he experienced at least one incident of unintended acceleration.
The court denied the motion to exclude the plaintiffs' expert. At trial, the plaintiffs' expert, Stilson, explained the relevant parts of a 1996 Camry's engine, focusing specifically on the components of the accelerator control system—which included the throttle—and the cruise control system. Though both systems were housed within the same plastic dust cover, Stilson testified that the cruise control system was mechanically separate from the accelerator control system. Stilson opined that the accelerator control system was defective. He conducted testing which revealed that, when heated to a certain temperature, two of the throttle pulleys in the accelerator control system would bind together and cause the throttle to stick. In order to conduct these tests, he explained, he had to clip the cruise control arm away from its original factory position. Stilson ultimately concluded that the plastic dust cover had gaps allowing heat to enter and become trapped inside, causing the plastic throttle pulleys to overheat and stick together. In Stilson's opinion, this sticking defect led to the unintended...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States ex rel. Cairns v. D.S. Med. LLC
...injuries and then some, leaving no doubt that awarding anything more would lead to a duplicative recovery. See Adams v. Toyota Motor Corp. , 867 F.3d 903, 921 (8th Cir. 2017) (discussing double recoveries). Even if the dismissal without prejudice left the government with the ability to revi......
-
United States v. McDaniel
...had knowledge, skill, experience, and training sufficient to qualify him as an expert in drug trafficking. See Adams v. Toyota Motor Corp. , 867 F.3d 903, 916 (8th Cir. 2017) (noting that an expert opinion "need not be a scientific absolute in order to be admissible" (internal quotation mar......
-
Merfeld v. Dometic Corp.
...1372, 1376–77 (8th Cir. 1996).V. DISCUSSION State law applies to products liability actions based on diversity. Adams v. Toyota Motor Corp. , 867 F.3d 903, 916 (8th Cir. 2017). Thus, Iowa law applies to this action. As noted above, the remaining causes of action are (1) strict liability and......
-
Bavlsik v. Gen. Motors, LLC
...the matter and was "subjected to lengthy and detailed cross-examination." Adams v. Toyota Motor Corp., Nos. 15–2507, –2516, –2635 to 2638, 867 F.3d 903, 918, 2017 WL 3445112, at *7 (8th Cir. Aug. 11, 2017). GM's experts did the same and were similarly challenged. This is a classic example o......
-
Introduction
...allowed to examine and cross-examine witnesses extensively regarding the similar incidents. See also Adams v. Toyota Motor Corporation , 867 F.3d 903, 913 (8th Cir. 2017). In a products liability action, there was no abuse of discretion in allowing other witnesses to testify regarding other......
-
Irrelevant or immaterial questions
...to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Adams v. Toyota Motor Corporation , 867 F.3d 903 (8th Cir., Minn., 2017). In a widely publicized products liability action following a crash wherein a car with an allegedly defective accelerator ......
-
Irrelevant or immaterial questions
...to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Adams v. Toyota Motor Corporation , 867 F.3d 903 (8th Cir., Minn., 2017). In a widely publicized products liability action following a crash wherein a car with an allegedly defective accelerator ......
-
Irrelevant or immaterial questions
...to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Adams v. Toyota Motor Corporation , 867 F.3d 903 (8th Cir., Minn., 2017). In a widely publicized products liability action following a crash wherein a car with an allegedly defective accelerator ......