Burgess v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd.

• Decision Date: 05 December 1995
• Docket Number: No. 95-1106,95-1106
• Parties: Robert H. BURGESS, Appellant, v. SUZUKI MOTOR COMPANY, LTD.; U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 304

71 F.3d 304

33 Fed.R.Serv.3d 524

Robert H. BURGESS, Appellant, v. SUZUKI MOTOR COMPANY, LTD.; U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation, Appellees.

No. 95-1106.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 15, 1995.

Decided Dec. 5, 1995.

Timothy Bosler, Kansas City, MO, argued, for appellant.

R. Douglas Gentile, Kansas City, MO, argued (Evan A. Douthit and Randall L. Rhodes, on the brief), for appellee.

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, and McMILLIAN and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.

Robert H. Burgess appeals from a final judgment entered in the United States District Court ¹ for the Western District of Missouri upon a jury verdict in favor of defendants Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., and U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp. (now known as American Suzuki Motor Corp.) (together referred to as Suzuki) under a theory of strict liability for defective product design. For reversal, Burgess argues the district court (1) erred in refusing to instruct the jury on comparative fault and (2) abused its discretion in admitting into evidence the testimony of Suzuki's design engineer, Tsuya Oishi. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

I. BACKGROUND

Burgess filed this action in the federal district court in May, 1992, five years after he was injured on May 20, 1987, while riding a 1987 Suzuki LT 300 EH four-wheel-drive all-terrain vehicle (ATV). The jurisdiction of the district court is based on diversity of citizenship, and this case is governed by Missouri substantive law.

In April, 1987, Burgess was employed to maintain eighty acres of land near Clinton, Missouri. His duties included clearing brush and trees and mowing pastures. He was paid wages for his work and also lived in a trailer on this property. Burgess's employer purchased the ATV for him to use in performing his maintenance duties. Burgess rode the ATV daily and never had any handling or stability problems with it before the accident.

After completing his maintenance work on May 20, 1987, Burgess, along with a friend, returned to his trailer. Burgess drank one or two beers and then realized he left his cigarettes in his shirt pocket back at a brush pile where he had been working. He then rode back towards the brush pile on the ATV over a path which he had previously ridden many times without experiencing any control problems. When Burgess attempted to cross a small ditch, the ATV flipped over on top of him and Burgess sustained injuries.

After a four-day trial on the sole remaining claim of strict liability for defective design, ² a jury rendered a verdict in favor of Suzuki. Burgess's post-trial motion for new trial was denied by the district court. Burgess v. Suzuki Motor Corp., No. 92-0457-CV-W-2-BD (W.D.Mo. Dec. 1, 1994) (order). This appeal followed.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Appellate Jurisdiction

As a threshold matter, Suzuki raises as an issue the scope of this court's jurisdiction. In the notice of appeal Burgess designated the order denying the motion for new trial, ³ not the judgment entered upon the jury verdict. Suzuki argues this court can review only the order denying the motion for new trial. Burgess argues that, although he should have specified the judgment in his notice of appeal, because the appeal information form filed with his notice of appeal lists specific errors in jury instructions and evidentiary rulings, his intent to appeal from the judgment in question is apparent.

The requirement of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) that a notice of appeal "designate the judgment, order, or part thereof appealed from" is a jurisdictional prerequisite of the appellate court. Klaudt v. United States Dep't of Interior, 990 F.2d 409, 411 (8th Cir.1993) (Klaudt ); Berdella v. Delo, 972 F.2d 204, 208 (8th Cir.1992) (Berdella ). Although a court may construe the Rules liberally in determining whether they have been complied with, a court may not waive the jurisdictional requirement of Rule 3 if it finds that it has not been met. Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 317, 108 S.Ct. 2405, 2409, 101 L.Ed.2d 285 (1988) (where the notice of appeal under consideration failed to designate the specific individual seeking to appeal). However, "[p]ermitting imperfect but substantial compliance with a technical requirement is not the same as waiving the requirement altogether as a jurisdictional threshold." Id. at 315-16, 108 S.Ct. at 2408.

The Eighth Circuit traditionally construes notices of appeal liberally, but the intent to appeal the judgment in question must be apparent and there must be no prejudice to the adverse party. Klaudt, 990 F.2d at 411; Berdella, 972 F.2d at 207. This court, in determining the scope of this appeal, can rely on both the notice of appeal and appeal information form. See McAninch v. Traders Nat'l Bank, 779 F.2d 466, 467 n. 2 (8th Cir.1985) (intent to appeal an order was apparent from the procedural history of the case, the caption on the notice of appeal, and the inclusion of the order on the appeal information form), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1182, 106 S.Ct. 2917, 91 L.Ed.2d 545 (1986). Burgess's listing of the specific errors on the appeal information form shows that he intended to appeal the judgment and not merely the order denying the motion for new trial. Suzuki, in its brief on appeal, conditionally responded on the merits to all issues raised by Burgess in the event this court determined it had jurisdiction of an appeal from the judgment. Suzuki has not demonstrated any prejudice resulting from our consideration of an appeal taken from the judgment. We hold that Burgess has complied with Fed.R.App.P. 3, and we have jurisdiction of an appeal of the judgment entered upon the jury verdict. For this appeal, we will limit our review to those errors listed in the appeal information form. ⁴

B. Comparative Fault Jury Instruction

Suzuki originally pled comparative fault as an affirmative defense to Burgess's allegations of defective product design. After the close of evidence and at the final instruction conference, Suzuki withdrew, over the objections of Burgess, its comparative fault jury instruction and added an affirmative converse instruction.

Burgess argues that after Suzuki pled and introduced evidence as to the fault of Burgess, the district court erred in not instructing the jury on comparative fault because Burgess did not agree to the withdrawal of the comparative fault jury instruction.

Suzuki argues that any claim of instructional error has not been preserved for appeal because Burgess did not proffer his own correct comparative fault instruction. Suzuki argues Burgess's submission of instructions with comparative fault verdict directors and a comparative fault verdict form was not enough. Even if the claim of error has been preserved for appeal, Suzuki argues that Burgess, as the plaintiff, was not entitled to such an instruction because under Missouri law comparative fault in a strict product liability case is a statutory defense. Mo.Rev.Stat. Sec. 537.765.2 (1994) states "[d]efendant may plead and prove the fault of the plaintiff as an affirmative defense." Furthermore, Suzuki argues that, before Burgess would be entitled to an instruction, Burgess had to, and did not, show that (1) the requested instruction supported his theory of the case, (2) he introduced evidence to support it, and (3) the proposed instruction was legally correct.

In their briefs and in oral argument before this court both parties have assumed the doctrine of comparative fault applies to this strict product liability case. However, the accident occurred on May 20, 1987. The effective date of the Missouri comparative fault statute for strict product liability cases is July 1, 1987. Mo.Rev.Stat. Sec. 537.765 (1994). Prior to July 1, 1987, Missouri did not apply comparative fault in strict product liability cases. See Lippard v. Houdaille Indus., Inc., 715 S.W.2d 491 (Mo.1986) (banc) (Lippard ). Because this accident occurred...