Hermann v. General Motors Corp.
| Decision Date | 28 November 1983 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 82-4507,82-4521,s. 82-4507 |
| Citation | 720 F.2d 414 |
| Parties | Robert J. HERMANN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. Marguerite HERMANN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Scofield, Bergstedt, Gerard, Mount & Veron, Richard E. Gerard, Jr., Lake Charles, La., for plaintiff-appellant.
Plauche & Maselli, Andrew L. Plauche, Jr., New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
Before BROWN, THORNBERRY and TATE, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiffs appeal from the dismissal, after jury trial, of their suits against a manufacturer based upon its product defect. They contend that the district court improperly allowed evidence concerning the presence of seat belts in the vehicle and in improperly instructing the jury, over objection, that it could consider the availability of seat belts in assessing the dangerousness of the car manufactured by the defendant. Erie -bound by Louisiana decisional law, we affirm.
The plaintiff wife was seriously injured in a crash because spot welds under a car seat came loose after a crash. She and her husband brought suits against the defendant manufacturer, which were consolidated for trial and appeal. The plaintiff wife's suit sought to impose liability on the defendant under products liability principles, for "failing to furnish, manufacture, equip and design " the automobile so it would be safe and useful. Over objection, the district court allowed evidence as to the presence of seat belts in the car and their non-use by the plaintiff wife, and it afforded the instructions complained of that allowed the jury to take into consideration the availability of seat belts in determining whether the vehicle as designed was unreasonably dangerous for crashworthy purposes.
The plaintiffs point out that, under Louisiana law, the failure to use seat belts does not constitute contributory negligence or fault of a victim injured in a crash. They persuasively argue that it is illogical to permit the jury to consider the availability of seat belts, which a victim is not obliged to use, in determining whether the vehicle as manufactured contains an unreasonably dangerous product defect.
Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, however, identical contentions in a generically similar factual situation were rejected in McElroy v. Allstate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huff v. Shumate
...89 F.3d 729 (10th Cir.1996) (citing Barron and applying Wellborn test with little rationale to reach same result); Hermann v. General Motors Corp., 720 F.2d 414 (5th Cir.1983) (stating only that court was "Erie-bound" to apply Louisiana case law regarding the admissibility of evidence of pl......
-
Camacho v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
...has been adopted by the vast majority of courts in other jurisdictions which have considered the issue. E.g., Hermann v. General Motors Corp., 720 F.2d 414 (5th Cir.1983); Sours v. General Motors Corp., 717 F.2d 1511 (6th Cir.1983); Horn v. General Motors Corp., 17 Cal.3d 359, 131 Cal.Rptr.......
-
Connelly v. Hyundai Motor Co.
...with a functional restraint system and should again instruct the jury of the limited purpose of that evidence."); Hermann v. Gen. Motors Corp., 720 F.2d 414, 415 (5th Cir.1983) (holding that jury was properly instructed that it could consider the "availability of seat belts" in assessing "d......
-
Hodges v. Mack Trucks Inc.
...this circuit has affirmed the introduction of such evidence under other States' laws, despite statutory prohibition. Hermann v. GM Corp., 720 F.2d 414 (5th Cir.1983) (Louisiana law). Finally, Mack insists it is sound public policy to permit such evidence because federal law mandates truck d......