Cansler v. Mills

• Decision Date: 02 April 2002
• Docket Number: No. 05A02-0107-CV-467.,05A02-0107-CV-467.
• Citation: 765 N.E.2d 698
• Parties: Keith CANSLER, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Earl MILLS and General Motors Corporation, Appellee-Defendant.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

765 N.E.2d 698

Keith CANSLER, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Earl MILLS and General Motors Corporation, Appellee-Defendant.

No. 05A02-0107-CV-467.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

April 2, 2002.

Chris M. Teagle, Muncie, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Philip L. Harris, Julie A. Labunski, Holland & Knight LLP, Chicago, IL, Scott Schockley, Defur, Voran, Hanley, Radcliffe & Reed, Muncie, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

OPINION

VAIDIK, Judge.

Case Summary

Keith Cansler appeals the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of General Motors in Cansler's product liability case. In particular, Cansler asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it disregarded the designated testimony of a mechanic who examined Cansler's Corvette after it was in an accident and opined that the Corvette's air bag should have deployed. In addition, Cansler argues that he designated sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption that the Corvette's air bag was not defective. We find that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding all of the mechanic's testimony because it included the mechanic's observations of the wrecked car. Because Cansler designated sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption, we reverse.

Facts and Procedural History

On January 27, 1998, Cansler wrecked his 1994 Corvette. While driving the Corvette on Interstate 69 at a speed of 45-50 miles per hour, Cansler rear-ended a car driven by Earl Mills, which came over into Cansler's lane after hitting the car in front of it. The Corvette's air bag never deployed. On May 24, 1999, Cansler filed suit against Mills for damages resulting from the collision, and on January 7, 2000, Cansler amended the complaint to add General Motors as a defendant alleging a claim for product liability due to the failure of the Corvette's air bag to inflate at the time of the accident.

On November 30, 1999, General Motors filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the air bag installed in the 1994 Corvette complied with the 1994 Federal Motor Vehicle Standard; therefore, there was a rebuttable presumption that the Corvette was not defective. General Motors added that Cansler failed to designate any appropriate evidence that would rebut this presumption because expert witness testimony was required for the rebuttal. In response, Cansler submitted the deposition of Bruce L. Brake, an auto mechanic who examined Cansler's Corvette after the collision. Brake testified that the Corvette had front-end damage to the vehicle's frame. Thirteen hours of labor and the replacement of the front frame crossmember were required to repair the damage to the Corvette's frame. Based on his observations of other wrecked vehicles with front-end frame damage, Brake proceeded to testify that the Corvette's air bag should have deployed. Finding that Brake was not qualified to issue an expert opinion, the trial court ruled that Brake's testimony regarding the air bag's failure to deploy was inadmissible. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of General Motors. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

Cansler argues that the trial court erred when it granted General Motors' summary judgment motion. Cansler contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it disregarded Brake's testimony. In addition, Cansler asserts that he designated sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the Corvette's air bag was not defective.

Summary judgment is appropriate if the "designated evidentiary matter shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." U-Haul Int'l, Inc. v. Nulls Mach. & Mfg. Shop, 736 N.E.2d 271, 274 (Ind.Ct. App.2000), reh'g denied, trans. denied (quoting Ind. Trial Rule 56(C)). The moving party bears the burden of specifically designating materials that make a prima facie showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. U-Haul, 736 N.E.2d at 274. If these two requirements are met, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to set forth designated facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial. Id. A genuine issue of material fact exists where facts concerning an issue that would dispose of the litigation are in dispute or where the undisputed material facts are capable of supporting conflicting inferences on such an issue. Id.

On appeal from summary judgment, the reviewing court faces the same issues that were before the trial court and analyzes them the same way. Moberly v. Day, 757 N.E.2d 1007, 1009 (Ind.2001). While the nonmovant bears the burden of demonstrating that the grant of summary judgment was erroneous, we carefully assess the trial court's decision to be sure that the nonmovant was not wrongly denied his or her day in court. Id. We view the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and affidavits in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Carie v. PSI Energy, Inc., 715 N.E.2d 853, 855 (Ind.1999).

I. Exclusion of Testimony

Cansler argues that the trial court erred in excluding Brake's testimony. Specifically, Cansler asserts that Brake's testimony should not have been excluded because it was based on Brake's observation and skill rather than on scientific principles.

It is within the trial court's sound discretion to decide whether a person qualifies as an expert witness. Creasy v. Rusk, 730 N.E.2d 659, 669 (Ind.2000). Indiana Evidence Rule 702 provides that a witness may be qualified as an expert by virtue of "knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education." Id. (quoting Ind. Evidence Rule 702(a)). Only one characteristic is necessary to qualify an individual as an expert. Creasy, 730 N.E.2d at 669. Therefore, a witness may qualify as an expert on the basis of practical experience alone. See id. However, "[e]xpert scientific testimony is admissible only if the court is satisfied that the scientific principles upon which the expert testimony rests are reliable." West v. State, 755 N.E.2d 173, 180 (Ind.2001) (quoting Evid. R. 702(b)); Ford Motor Co. v. Ammerman, 705 N.E.2d 539, 550 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trans. denied, cert. denied by 529 U.S. 1021, 120 S.Ct. 1424, 146 L.Ed.2d 315 (2000). We will reverse a trial court's decision to exclude evidence only if that decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before this court, or the reasonable, probable and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom. Wallace v. Meadow Acres Manufactured Hous., Inc., 730 N.E.2d 809, 812 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. denied.

In his deposition, Brake admitted that he had never consulted in a case where an air bag had been defective, attended classes relating to Corvettes, or done any work designing or testing air bags. Brake also admitted that he was not aware of the underlying scientific principles that relate to air bag deployment. However, Brake testified that he had been a mechanic since approximately 1970 and that he has been in the business of restoring salvaged vehicles for approximately 18 years. In 1992, Brake started his own car sales and automobile repair and salvage business, Bruce's Repair, Body and Wrecker Service. Brake testified that through his employment he had examined numerous wrecked automobiles with deployed air bags. In particular, Brake worked on at least 20 to 25 wrecked Corvettes over the last ten years. Brake noted that, like the other wrecked automobiles he had examined, the air bags in the Corvettes were deployed when the cars had front-end damage extensive enough to cause damage to the cars' frame.

Three to four days after Cansler's accident, Brake examined Cansler's Corvette. Brake asserted that the Corvette had damage to the front frame section. Brake then gave his opinion that based on his observations of other vehicles that had been in accidents severe enough to cause front frame damage, the air bag in Cansler's Corvette should have deployed because the Corvette hit hard enough to cause front frame damage. In its summary judgment motion, General Motors argued that Brake was not qualified to give an expert opinion on air bag deployment and that his opinion had no scientific basis or foundation. The trial court agreed with General Motors and excluded Brake's testimony.

In its Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, the trial court made the following conclusions regarding Brake's opinion:

1. That the deployment of an air bag system as a result of a collision is governed by scientific principles that are not within the common knowledge of a lay person.

2. That although Bruce Brake may be an expert in various areas of automotive repair, he lacks the knowledge, skill, experience, training or education to render a scientific opinion regarding the design and deployment of air bag systems.

3. That it is the Court's function to determine whether or not an expert's testimony has a sufficiently reliable basis so that the expert's testimony will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Rogers Ex Rel. Rogers v. Cosco, Inc., 737 N.E.2d 1158 (Ind.Ct.App.2000)

4. That the opinion of Bruce Brake in regards to the failure of the air bag to deploy is inadmissible as evidence in this summary judgment proceeding just as it would be at the trial itself.

Appellant's App. p. 276-77. While Brake's experience with various areas of automotive repair provided him with some knowledge in the area of air bag deployment, there was ample evidence presented to the court to suggest that Brake did not have enough experience with the fundamentals of air bag deployment to qualify him as an expert in the area. Brake never consulted in a case where an air bag had been defective, never had training in air bags, never attended classes relating to Corvettes, and never worked designing, testing, or certifying air bag systems. Therefore, we find that the trial court did not abuse its...