Atanassova v. Gen. Motors LLC
| Decision Date | 22 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-01728-RMG |
| Parties | Alexandrina Atanassova and David Pendergast, individually and as parents and natural guardians of S.P, a minor, Plaintiffs, v. General Motors LLC, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
Before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 45). Also before the Court are motions by Defendant to exclude the testimony and opinions of Plaintiffs' experts Mr. Stephen R. Syson, (Dkt. No. 40), Dr. Lila Laux, (Dkt. No. 41), Dr. Steven A. Kahn, (Dkt. No. 42), and Dr. Kenneth Boudreaux, (Dkt. No. 44). For the reasons set forth below, the Court: (1) grants in part and denies in part Defendant's motion for summary judgment; (2) grants in part and denies in part Defendant's motion to exclude the testimony of Mr. Stephen R. Syson; (3) grants Defendant's motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Lila Laux; and (4) denies Defendant's motions to exclude the testimonies of Drs. Steven A. Kahn and Kenneth Boudreaux.
This is a products liability case arising out of a fuel-fed fire that consumed the Plaintiffs' 2007 Silverado C1500 crew cab truck (the "2007 Silverado" or the "subject vehicle"). Plaintiffs allege that the vehicle fire occurred on June 27, 2018 and was not precipitated by a collision. Plaintiffs allege the fire originated in the undercarriage area where the vehicle's fuel storage tank and its fuel supply components were located. Plaintiff S.P—a minor and the child of Plaintiffs Alexandrina Atanassova and David Pendergast—allegedly suffered second and third degree burns to over 25% of her body because of the fire. Atanassova and Pendergast also allegedly suffered serious injuries.
In brief, Plaintiffs allege that the 2007 Silverado's fuel system and components were defectively and negligently designed, manufactured, and marketed and that these defects and negligence were the cause of the vehicle fire.
Defendant moved for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 45). In conjunction with its summary judgment briefing, Defendant moved to exclude or limit the testimony of four of Plaintiffs' experts: (1) Mr. Stephen R. Syson, (Dkt. No. 40); (2) Dr. Lila Laux, (Dkt. No. 41); (3) Dr. Steven A. Kahn, (Dkt. No. 42); and (4) Dr. Kenneth Boudreaux, (Dkt. No. 44). Plaintiffs oppose Defendant's motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. No. 74), and all of Defendant's Daubert motions, (Dkt. Nos. 62, 63, 64, 65). Defendant filed replies. (Dkt. Nos. 75, 76, 80, 84).
Defendant's motions are fully briefed and ripe for disposition.
Under Rules 104(a) and 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, "the trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable." Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993). Thus, even if a witness is "qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education," the trial court must ensure that (1) "the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods," that (2) "the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case," and (3) that the "testimony is based on sufficient facts or data." Fed. R. Evid. 702(b) - (d). "This entails a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid," Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592 - 93, and whether the expert has "faithfully appl[ied] the methodology to facts," Roche v. Lincoln Prop. Co., 175 F. App'x 597, 602 (4th Cir. 2006).
Factors to be considered include "whether a theory or technique...can be (and has been) tested," "whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication," the "known or potential rate of error," the "existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation," and whether the theory or technique has garnered "general acceptance." Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593 - 94. However, these factors are neither definitive nor exhaustive, United States v. Fultz, 591 F. App'x 226, 227 (4th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 2370 (2015), and "merely illustrate[] the types of factors that will bear on the inquiry." United States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d 104, 130 (4th Cir. 2014). This is especially true as the Daubert standard applies to non-scientific expert testimony as well. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the movant must demonstrate that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of identifying the portions of the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, [which] show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving part is entitled to a judgement as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 & n.4 (1986) (citing Rule 56(c)). The Court will interpret all inferences and ambiguities against the movant and in favor of the non-moving party. U.S. v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962). Where the moving party has met its burden to put forth sufficient evidence to demonstrate there is no genuine dispute of material fact, the non-moving party must come forth with "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (citing Rule 56(e)). An issue of material fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986).
The Court first addresses Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Then the Court addresses Defendant's Daubert motions.
First, Defendant argues it is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs' product design claims because Plaintiffs cannot prove that, at the time of the accident, the 2007 Silverado was in "essentially the same condition as when it left the hands of the defendant."
"In a products liability action, the plaintiff must prove (1) that he was injured by the product; (2) that the injury occurred because the product was in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous to the user; and (3) that the product at the time of the accident was in essentially the same condition as when it left the hands of the defendant." Branham v. Ford Motor Co., 390 S.C. 203, 245 (2010). South Carolina courts have barred recovery where "it can be shown that a product was (1) materially altered before it reached the injured user and (2) such alteration could not have been expected by the manufacturer or seller." Ervin v. Cont'l Conveyer & Equip. Co., 674 F. Supp. 2d 709, 723 (D.S.C. 2009). Importantly, however, questions as to whether an injury was caused by a defect in design or whether the defect was created by the subsequent unforeseeable modification of a third party are generally for a jury. Small v. Pioneer Mach., Inc., 329 S.C. 448, 466, 494 S.E.2d 835, 844 (Ct. App. 1997) (citing Kennedy v. Custom Ice Equip. Co., 271 S.C. 171, 246 S.E.2d 176 (1978))
The Court denies Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs' product design claims. As made clear by their respective briefing—and the expert testimony cited therein—the parties clearly dispute whether the modifications made to the subject vehicle's exhaust system were material to the vehicle fire or foreseeable by Defendant. Therefore, the question of whether the 2007 Silverado was in essentially the same condition as when it left the hands of Defendant is clearly one for the jury. Small, 329 S.C. at 466 ().
For the above reasons, the Court denies Defendant's motion on this point.
Next, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' manufacturing defect claims fail as a matter of law because the record is devoid of evidence in support of such claims. Plaintiffs admit that no such evidence exists. Plaintiffs also indicate that they are no longer pursuing such claims.
For the above reasons, the Court grants Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs' manufacturing defect claims.
Next, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' failure to warn claim fails because Plaintiffs cannot show a different warning would have changed the outcome in this case.
Defendant notes that neither Pendergast nor Atanassova read the subject vehicle's Owner's Manual, Warranty Booklet and Maintenance Schedule, or Service Manual. See (Dkt. No. 45-3 at 4-5); (Dkt. No. 45-4 at 4). Consequently, argues Defendant, Plaintiffs cannot show that "a different, adequate warning would have changed the outcome in this case." Burns v. Coty, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-5060-TLW, 2018 WL 3575930, at *5 ().
The Court finds that Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs' failure to warm claim. Because neither Pendergast nor Atanassova read the 2007 Silverado's Owner's Manual, Warranty Booklet and Maintenance Schedule, or Service Manual, a different warning would not have made a difference in this case. See Pendergast Deposition, (Dkt. No. 45-3) ( ); Atanassova Deposition, (Dkt. No. 45-4) ( ); Allen v. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial