Kudlacek v. Fiat S.p.A.

• Decision Date: 07 January 1994
• Docket Number: No. S-91-435,S-91-435
• Citation: 244 Neb. 822,509 N.W.2d 603
• Parties: Eugene and Connie KUDLACEK, Guardians and Conservators of Christopher Kudlacek, A Protected Person, Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. FIAT S.p.A. and Fiat Motors of North America, Inc., Appellees and Cross-Appellants.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Page 603

509 N.W.2d 603

244 Neb. 822

Eugene and Connie KUDLACEK, Guardians and Conservators of Christopher Kudlacek, A Protected Person, Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. FIAT S.p.A. and Fiat Motors of North America, Inc., Appellees and Cross-Appellants.

No. S-91-435.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Jan. 7, 1994.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Directed Verdict: Negligence: Liability: Appeal and Error. In a court's review of a directed verdict, the party against whom a motion for a direction of liability is made is entitled to have every controverted fact resolved in his or her favor and to have the benefit of every inference which can reasonably be drawn from the evidence. If there is any evidence which will sustain a finding for the party against whom the motion is made, the case may not be decided as a matter of law. A directed verdict is proper only where reasonable minds cannot differ and can only draw one conclusion from the evidence. Where reasonable minds may draw different conclusions from the evidence, the question of negligence is for determination by the jury.

2. Products Liability: Negligence. In products liability, there is a significant distinction between a manufacturer's liability for the manufactured product on account of strict liability in tort, as opposed to liability based on negligence.

3. Products Liability: Actions: Negligence. In a cause of action based on negligence, the question involves the manufacturer's conduct, that is, whether the manufacturer's conduct was reasonable in view of the foreseeable risk of injury, whereas in a cause of action based on strict liability in tort, the question involves the quality of the manufactured product, that is, whether the product was unreasonably dangerous.

4. Products Liability: Proof. To recover against the defendant on a claim of strict liability in a products liability case, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) The defendant placed the product on the market for use and knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the product would be used without inspection for defects; (2) the product was in a defective condition when it was placed on the market and left the defendant's possession; (3) the defect is the proximate or a proximately contributing cause of plaintiff's injury sustained while the product was being used in the way and for the general purpose for which it was designed and intended; (4) the defect, if existent, rendered the product unreasonably dangerous and unsafe for its intended use; and (5) plaintiff's damages were a direct and proximate result of the alleged defect.

5. Products Liability: Words and Phrases. "Unreasonably dangerous" means that the product has a propensity for causing physical harm beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary user or consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the foreseeable class of users as to its characteristics.

6. Products Liability: Motor Vehicles. One who is injured as a result of a mechanical defect in a motor vehicle should be protected under the doctrine of strict liability, even though the defect was not the cause of the collision which precipitated the injury. Since collisions for whatever cause are foreseeable events, the scope of liability should be commensurate with the scope of the foreseeable risks.

7. Products Liability: Motor Vehicles: Damages: Proof. Under a theory of crashworthiness, the plaintiff must show that his injuries were enhanced as a result of the defective design of the vehicle, because the manufacturer is liable for only that portion of the damages caused as a result of the defective design.

8. Products Liability: Motor Vehicles: Damages: Proof. In a crashworthiness claim, once the plaintiff establishes that the manufacturer's design was a substantial factor in producing the plaintiff's additional injuries, then the burden is on the defendant to show apportionment of damages.

9. Products Liability: Motor Vehicles: Damages. If the damages cannot be apportioned, then the defendant manufacturer may be held jointly and severally liable with the defendant responsible for the original collision.

10. Products Liability: Proof. Nebraska no longer requires proof of an alternative design for a claimant to recover under a claim of defective design.

11. Rules of Evidence. In all proceedings where the Nebraska Evidence Rules apply, admissibility of evidence is controlled by the Nebraska Evidence Rules, not judicial discretion, except in those instances under the Nebraska Evidence Rules when judicial discretion is a factor involved in admissibility of evidence.

12. Rules of Evidence: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion where the Nebraska Evidence Rules permit judicial discretion in assessing admissibility.

13. Trial: Evidence. Evidence relating to an illustrative experiment is admissible if a competent person conducted the experiment, an apparatus of suitable kind and condition was utilized, and the experiment was conducted fairly and honestly; substantial similarity is sufficient.

14. Trial: Evidence: Appeal and Error. The trial court has wide discretion in determining whether evidence relating to illustrative experiments should be received; a judgment will not be reversed on account of the admission or rejection of such testimony unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion.

15. Trial: Evidence: Videotapes. Where a videotape is offered not to re-create conditions similar to the accident, but merely to illustrate certain principles, differences in surrounding conditions are less relevant and do not require the videotape's exclusion; the dissimilarity of the test conditions to the accident conditions would go to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility.

16. Jury Instructions: Evidence: New Trial. Submission of an issue on which the evidence is insufficient to sustain an affirmative finding is generally prejudicial and results in a new trial.

17. Jury Instructions: Appeal and Error. All the jury instructions must be read together, and if, taken as a whole, they correctly state the law, are not misleading, and adequately cover the issues supported by the pleadings and the evidence, there is no prejudicial error necessitating a reversal.

18. Trial: Evidence. Computer-generated models or simulations are admissible upon a showing that (1) the computer is functioning properly; (2) the input and underlying equations are sufficiently complete and accurate and are disclosed to the opposing party, so that that party may challenge them; and (3) the program is generally accepted by the appropriate community of scientists.

M.J. Bruckner, John V. Hendry, and Michael K. High, of Bruckner, O'Gara, Keating, Hendry, Davis & Nedved, P.C., Lincoln, for appellants.

Gerald L. Friedrichsen, of Fitzgerald, Schorr, Barmettler & Brennan, Omaha, and George J. Lavin, Jr., and Thomas J. Bradley, of Lavin, Coleman, Finarelli & Gray, Philadelphia, PA, for appellees.

HASTINGS, C.J., and BOSLAUGH, CAPORALE, FAHRNBRUCH, and LANPHIER, JJ.

LANPHIER, Justice.

Eugene and Connie Kudlacek brought this product liability action against Fiat S.p.A. and Fiat Motors of North America, Inc. (hereinafter jointly Fiat), as guardians and conservators of their son, Christopher Kudlacek, for injuries sustained by Christopher Kudlacek in an accident in which he was an automobile passenger. Plaintiffs presented evidence to support their claims that (1) the Fiat X1/9 automobile was defectively designed because it did not provide adequate protection for the passengers during a rollover and side-impact collision with an object (crashworthiness claim), (2) the Fiat X1/9 was designed with poor handling stability, and (3) Fiat failed to warn of the handling The plaintiffs appeal, and the defendants cross-appeal. Plaintiffs assert the trial court erred (1) in dismissing their crashworthiness claim; (2) in receiving the videotapes of tests conducted on other vehicles; and (3) in submitting to the jury, and improperly instructing it on, the "state-of-the-art" defense. On cross-appeal, defendants assert the trial court erred (1) in overruling the directed verdict on plaintiffs' allegations of strict liability under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-21,181 (Reissue 1989), (2) in overruling a motion for directed verdict on grounds of insufficient evidence presented by the plaintiffs, and (3) in permitting plaintiffs' accident reconstruction expert to testify concerning computer simulation of the path of the Fiat X1/9 during the accident. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

defect. After the plaintiffs presented their evidence, the defendants moved for a directed verdict. The court granted the motion on the issue of crashworthiness on both negligence and strict liability theories on the basis that there was no evidence of the extent of the enhanced injuries attributable to the alleged defect in the occupant-protection characteristics of the vehicle and no evidence that plaintiffs' alternative design would have resulted in different injuries. The remaining issues were submitted to the jury, and it found for the defendants.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The record presents the following facts: On the evening of September 22, 1980, Christopher Kudlacek was a passenger in a Fiat X1/9 driven by Arlan Broome, Jr. Broome testified they were traveling north on 144th Street, by Dodge Street in Omaha, at a speed between 40 and 55 miles per hour. Broome testified that when he saw an animal crossing the road in front of the vehicle, he turned into the southbound lane to avoid hitting the animal, and lifted his foot off the accelerator. When Broome attempted to steer the vehicle back to the northbound lane, the vehicle began to fishtail. The vehicle remained out of control and ultimately slid sideways off the west side of 144th...