Butler v. Daimler Trucks N. Am.
| Docket Number | 19-CV-2377-JAR |
| Decision Date | 16 June 2022 |
| Parties | DAMIAN BUTLER, Individually, as Administrator of the Estate of Teresa Butler and O/B/O the Heirs-at-law of Teresa Butler, Deceased; ALEXANDER P. COHEN, GERALD Y. COHEN and WILLIAM E. COHEN, Individually and O/B/O the Heirs-at-law of Sheldon H. Cohen, Deceased; ALEXANDER P. COHEN, GERALD Y. COHEN and WILLIAM E. COHEN, Individually and O/B/O the Heirs-at-law of Virginia Cohen, Deceased; NICOLE GATES, as Next Friend of M.G., Minor and Heir-at-law of Ricardo Mireles, Deceased; ALISHA MIRELES, Individually, and as Next Friend of T.M., Minor, as Heirs-at-law of Ricardo Mireles, Deceased; TERRIE MYERS, as Next Friend of L.M, Minor and Heir-at-law of Ricardo Mireles, Deceased; and DIANE M. SANFORD, Individually, as the Administrator of the Estate of Karen Kennedy and O/B/O the Heirs-at-law of Karen L. Kennedy, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. DAIMLER TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Plaintiffs Damian Butler, Alexander Cohen, Gerald Cohen, William Cohen Nicole Gates, Alisha Mireles, Terrie Myers, and Diane Sanford bring this product liability action related to a fatal multivehicle accident involving a Freightliner semi-truck trailer manufactured by Defendant Daimler Trucks North America, LLC (“DTNA”).[1] Plaintiffs allege that the truck was defective in design due to the absence of collision mitigation technology and that DTNA failed to adequately warn of the dangers associated with failing to have such available technology. Before the Court is DTNA's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 117).[2] The matter is fully briefed and the Court is prepared to rule. For the reasons explained below the Court grants DTNA's motion.
Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party demonstrates “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact” and that it is “entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”[3]In applying this standard, the Court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.[4] “There is no genuine [dispute] of material fact unless the evidence, construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.”[5] A fact is “material” if, under the applicable substantive law, it is “essential to the proper disposition of the claim.”[6] A dispute of fact is “genuine” if “there is sufficient evidence on each side so that a rational trier of fact could resolve the issue either way.”[7] The moving party initially must show the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.[8] Once the movant has met the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”[9] The nonmoving party may not simply rest upon its pleadings to satisfy its burden.[10] Rather, the nonmoving party must “set forth specific facts that would be admissible in evidence in the event of trial from which a rational trier of fact could find for the nonmovant.”[11] In setting forth these specific facts, the nonmovant must identify the facts “by reference to affidavits, deposition transcripts, or specific exhibits incorporated therein.”[12] A nonmovant “cannot create a genuine issue of material fact with unsupported, conclusory allegations.”[13] A genuine issue of material facts must be supported by “more than a mere scintilla of evidence.”[14]
Finally, summary judgment is not a “disfavored procedural shortcut”; on the contrary, it is an important procedure “designed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.”[15] “At the same time, a summary judgment motion is not the chance for a court to act as the jury and determine witness credibility, weigh the evidence, or decide upon competing inferences.”[16]
The following material facts are either uncontroverted or viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs as the parties opposing summary judgment.[17] The Court does not consider facts presented by the parties that the record does not support or that are not relevant to the legal issues presented. Nor does the Court consider legal arguments included in the parties' statements of fact.
DTNA manufactured the 2015 Freightliner Cascadia model semi-truck trailer at issue in this case (the “Freightliner”). The Freightliner is categorized as a “Class Eight” heavy truck due to its weight.
Donne Jefferson is a co-owner of Indian Creek Express, LLC (“Indian Creek”), a trucking company. Jefferson has been in the trucking industry since 1992 and started Indian Creek in 1998. Jefferson has had his commercial driver's license (“CDL”) since 1992 or 1993 and has driven Freightliner brand trucks since approximately 1992. He is not an engineer and has no education, training, or experience designing Class Eight heavy trucks.
Jefferson is responsible for and began purchasing trucks on behalf of Indian Creek in approximately 2002. He considers himself a loyal Freightliner customer and has never purchased any other brand of trucks. The type of equipment and options that can be specified on heavy trucks is extensive. As co-owner of a trucking company, Jefferson believes it is important to stay educated and informed regarding the features and latest technology available on trucks; one reason is “to know the latest technology and how it's helping the industry for you to be more safe.”[18] Jefferson testified that he stays informed by: visiting the Freightliner website; attending on-site training opportunities sponsored by Freightliner and interacting with employees of Daimler Trucks and Freightliner; interacting with the dealership, Floyd's Truck Center; interacting with Freightliner's regional personnel; obtaining educational information from trucking organizations and magazines; utilizing his own experience driving trucks; and evaluating comments from his drivers.
Indian Creek has owned as many as 43 trucks. Jefferson, on behalf of Indian Creek, purchased the Freightliner in 2014, as part of a ten-truck order. A WABCO OnGuard Collision Warning System (“the OnGuard System”) was an available option for the Freightliner. The OnGuard System included forward collision warning (“FCW”) and automatic emergency braking (“AEB”) technology. If a vehicle is equipped with an FCW system and a rear-end crash is imminent, the FCW system warns the driver of the threat. If a vehicle is equipped with an AEB system and a rear-end crash is imminent but the driver takes no action or insufficient action, the AEB system may automatically apply or supplement the brakes to avoid or mitigate the rear-end crash.
The Maintenance Manual for the OnGuard System also states that the system is a driver aid only and warns in part that the system “is no substitute for the most important factor in vehicle safety, which is a safe, conscientious driver.”[20] It lists the driver's responsibilities to use safe driving techniques; exercise proper judgment for the traffic, road, and weather conditions; maintain a safe distance between vehicles; and apply the brakes when needed to maintain control of the vehicle.[21]
A Bendix VORAD VS-400 Collision Warning System (“the VORAD System”) was also an available option for the Freightliner. The VORAD System included FCW technology. The Freightliner Cascadia Driver Manual also warns in part that the system “is intended solely as an aid for an alert and conscientious professional driver, ” and that the system “may provide little or no warning of hazards such as pedestrians, animals, oncoming vehicles, or cross traffic.”[22]
The “Driver Instructions” for the VORAD System similarly states that the system “is intended solely as an aid for an alert and conscientious professional driver” and “not to be used or relied upon to operate a vehicle.”[23] It also warns that the VORAD System “should only be used as a driving aid and not as a substitute for safe driving practices.”[24]
Before purchasing the Freightliner, Jefferson was aware of the OnGuard System and the VORAD System and that the Freightliner could be equipped with either system. When deciding how to specify the equipment on the Freightliner, Jefferson “considered the various sources of information” available to him.[25] Before purchasing the Freightliner, he read journal and magazine articles about the OnGuard System and the VORAD System. Bendix representatives also “briefly hit on” information about the VORAD System.[26] Prior to purchase, Jefferson also attended “Detroit/Freightliner events” and tested “the new Freightliner Cascadia” products.[27]
Prior to purchase, Jefferson had personal experience driving a truck equipped with a collision mitigation system. In deciding whether to equip the Freightliner with the OnGuard System or the VORAD System, Jefferson balanced his perceived risks or drawbacks with his perceived benefits of the systems, including “driver overreliance” and his concern about “drivers becoming less involved or less attentive to the driving task.”[28] He also understood the “concept of false...
To continue reading
Request your trial