Estate of Thompson v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd.

Decision Date25 February 2013
Docket NumberNo. C 11–4026–MWB.,C 11–4026–MWB.
Citation933 F.Supp.2d 1111
PartiesThe ESTATE OF Scott W. THOMPSON, by the Personal Representatives, Randy W. Thompson and Vicky J. Thompson, and Randy W. Thompson and Vicky J. Thompson, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. KAWASAKI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD., and Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Frederick W. James, The James Law Firm, PC, Des Moines, IA, Douglas Richard Bradley, Scott Eric Nutter, Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman, Chtd., Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiffs.

Kevin M. Reynolds, Whitfield & Eddy, PLC, Des Moines, IA, Terrance M. Miller, Elizabeth Laudeman Moyo, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP, Columbus, OH, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES' PRETRIAL MOTIONS

MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.

+-----------------+
                ¦TABLE OF CONTENTS¦
                +-----------------¦
                ¦                 ¦
                +-----------------+
                
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦I.  ¦INTRODUCTION                                           ¦1120  ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦A.  ¦Factual Background                                        ¦1120   ¦
                +----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦B.  ¦Procedural Background                                     ¦1121   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦     ¦                                                              ¦       ¦
                +-----+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦II.  ¦LEGAL ANALYSIS                                                ¦1123   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦A.  ¦Standards For Pretrial Evidentiary Challenges             ¦1123   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦Rule 104 And Preliminary Questions Of Admissibility   ¦1123  ¦
                +----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦Relevance and prejudice standards                     ¦1124  ¦
                +----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦3.  ¦Hearsay and exceptions                                ¦1125  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦B.  ¦Kawasaki's Pretrial Motions                               ¦1126   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦  ¦  ¦1.  ¦Exclusion of hearsay statements and lay opinions of Mr. Lachioma  ¦1126 ¦
                +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Testimony about what Mr. Welter said              ¦1126  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦i.   ¦Arguments of the parties                     ¦1126   ¦
                +----+---+---+---+-----+---------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦ii.  ¦Analysis                                     ¦1126   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Testimony about how the accident occurred         ¦1128  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦i.   ¦Arguments of the parties                     ¦1128   ¦
                +----+---+---+---+-----+---------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦ii.  ¦Analysis                                     ¦1129   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦  ¦ ¦c.  ¦Testimony about statements from internet fora or  “enthusiast publications”  ¦1131 ¦
                ¦   ¦  ¦ ¦    ¦                                                                                  ¦     ¦
                +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦i.   ¦Arguments of the parties                     ¦1131   ¦
                +----+---+---+---+-----+---------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦ii.  ¦Analysis                                     ¦1132   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦Exclusion of hearsay testimony of Randy Thompson      ¦1133  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Arguments of the parties                          ¦1133  ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Analysis                                          ¦1134  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦3.  ¦Motion to bifurcate proceedings                       ¦1136  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Arguments of the parties                          ¦1136  ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Analysis                                          ¦1137  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦4.  ¦Exclusion of similar incidents evidence               ¦1138  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Arguments of the parties                          ¦1138  ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Analysis                                          ¦1139  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦5.  ¦Exclusion of causation opinions of the plaintiffs' expert  ¦1140  ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Arguments of the parties                          ¦1140  ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Analysis                                          ¦1141  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦C.  ¦The Thompsons' Motion To Exclude Evidence                 ¦1143   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦Evidence no longer in dispute                         ¦1143  ¦
                +----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦Evidence still in dispute                             ¦1144  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦  ¦ ¦a.  ¦Evidence of the lack of other claims and “wobble/weave” incidents  ¦1144¦
                +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦i.   ¦Arguments of the parties                     ¦1144   ¦
                +----+---+---+---+-----+---------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦ii.  ¦Analysis                                     ¦1144   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦  ¦  ¦ ¦b.  ¦Evidence that Scott Thompson caused his death or failed to mitigate his damages  ¦1146 ¦
                ¦  ¦  ¦ ¦    ¦                                                                                 ¦     ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦i.   ¦Arguments of the parties                     ¦1146   ¦
                +----+---+---+---+-----+---------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦ii.  ¦Analysis                                     ¦1146   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Individually v. Advanced Bionics, L.L.C.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • July 24, 2013
    ...renders the product not reasonably safe.” SeeRestatement (Third) § 2(b); see also Estate of Thompson v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd., 933 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1137 (N.D.Iowa 2013); Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co. v. SMA Elevator Constr., Inc., 816 F.Supp.2d 631, 657–58 (N.D.Iowa 2011). Here, the......
  • Bry v. City of Frontenac
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • December 18, 2015
    ...Evidence 807, asexceptions to the ban on admissibility of hearsay." (ECF No. 168 at 4-5 (citing Estate of Thompson v. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, 933 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1134-35 (N.D. Iowa 2013)).3 Robin may be considered unavailable because she asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege during her ......
  • Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Aurora Health Care Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • March 20, 2013
  • Taylor v. Jenkins
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • March 4, 2019
    ...declarant's will." "The state of mind at issue is the declarant's, not the testifying witness's." Estate of Thompson v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd., 933 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1132 (N.D. Iowa 2013) (citing First Nat'l Bank in Sioux Falls v. First Nat'l Bank South Dakota, 679 F.3d 763, 768 (8th C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Prior Daubert Orders And Discovery Lessons Out Of N.D. Cal.
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • February 8, 2022
    ...Grp., Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:15-CV-01370-EJD, (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2018), and Est. of Thompson v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd., 933 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1152 (N.D. Iowa 2013). He explained that because Daubert rulings come from judges, juries may give them undue weight. Thus, allowing par......
  • Prior Daubert Orders And Discovery Lessons Out Of N.D. Cal.
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • February 8, 2022
    ...Grp., Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:15-CV-01370-EJD, (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2018), and Est. of Thompson v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd., 933 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1152 (N.D. Iowa 2013). He explained that because Daubert rulings come from judges, juries may give them undue weight. Thus, allowing par......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT