LaHue v. General Motors Corp., 88-5063-CV-SW-1.
Decision Date | 05 July 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 88-5063-CV-SW-1.,88-5063-CV-SW-1. |
Citation | 716 F. Supp. 407 |
Parties | Michelle Renee LaHUE, John LaHue and Sharon LaHue, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Erwin Milne, Stockard, Andereck, Jefferson City, for plaintiffs.
Rod Loomer, Turner, Reid, Duncan, Springfield, for defendant.
Four motions are pending in this matter. Defendant filed a motion on April 10, 1989, for leave to file a first amended answer to the first amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed a motion on April 14, 1989, to strike part of the defendant's original answer to the first amended complaint. Plaintiffs' motion, filed May 4, 1989, to compel answers to interrogatories and to compel production of documents was the topic of a telephone conference on June 14, 1989, wherein the parties announced resolutions of most of the matters. Ruling on that motion will be deferred until the parties designate which issues remain for court intervention. Finally, defendant's motion to continue the trial date was granted orally at the conference. A trial order will issue accordingly, setting a pretrial conference for 1:00 p.m., August 4, 1989, and trial at 9:00 a.m., September 7, 1989, both in Springfield, Missouri. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to strike will be granted in part and denied in part, and the motion to file a first amended complaint will be granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiffs allege damages arising from an automobile accident involving a car manufactured by defendant. Plaintiffs claim the damages are due to defective design of the car seats. The motions concern paragraphs 14-16 of the defendant's answer, and paragraphs 14-18 of defendant's proposed amended answer to first amended complaint. The disputed parts of the answer are:
Paragraph 14 of the answer is the same as Paragraph 14 of the proposed first amended answer to the first amended complaint. The other disputed parts of the proposed answer are:
Plaintiffs argue that this lawsuit is a products liability matter and, therefore, defendant cannot plead or offer evidence concerning its proposed theories of contributory negligence, contributory fault, avoidance of consequences, mitigation of damages, assumption of risk, product misuse and comparative fault. Plaintiffs further argue that Mo.Rev.Stat. § 307.178.3 (1985) precludes admission of evidence concerning failure to wear a seat belt. Plaintiffs argue alternatively that, if such evidence is admissible, the admission concerns only mitigation of damages and the damages can be reduced only by one percent of the amount awarded.
Defendant argues that Missouri law permits the defenses of assumption of risk, contributory negligence and product misuse in products liability cases. Defendant further argues that the mitigation-of-damages/avoidable-consequences theory is permitted where all or part of the injury results from failure to use a seat belt. Defendant argues that the Missouri statute does not apply to "crashworthiness" cases1. Finally, defendant argues that the statute violates the equal-protection, due-process, and jury-trial clauses of the constitutions of the United States and Missouri.
According to the allegations in the complaint, Michelle LaHue, a minor, was driving a 1980 Buick Century about 10:30 p.m., January 9, 1987, in Stone County, Missouri, when it collided with another vehicle. She was thrown rapidly into the back seat, suffering numerous and substantial permanent and progressive injuries. She also incurred expenses and loss of future earnings capacity. The other two plaintiffs are her parents. Plaintiffs allege the damages are due to defective seat design.
In this diversity action involving an accident occurring in Missouri, the law of that state as enunciated by Missouri courts controls. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). The parties do not dispute that Missouri law controls, but there is considerable disagreement about what the law is. A similar problem arose in Sours v. General Motors Corp., 717 F.2d 1511 (6th Cir.1983), when it discussed Roberts v. Bohn, 26 Ohio App.2d 50, 269 N.E.2d 53 (1971), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Suchy v. Moore, 29 Ohio St.2d 99, 279 N.E.2d 878 (1972). In Roberts, evidence of failure to use a seat belt was held inadmissible. The court said in Sours, 717 F.2d at 1520-1521:
(footnotes and citations omitted)
This court is less fortunate and in a more unenviable position than the Sours court because it is absolutely required in this instance to make a decision. Enough has been written about the "seat-belt defense" to show the body of law related to it is split, fragmented and changing. It varies in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gaudio v. Ford Motor Co.
...liability, contributory negligence, mitigation of damages, avoidance of consequences, and comparative fault. LaHue v. General Motors Corp., 716 F.Supp. 407, 410 (W.D.Mo.1989). * * The court held that seat belt evidence was not admissible for the purposes of establishing contributory neglige......
-
Estep v. Ferrell Ford Lincoln-Mercury
...North Carolina common law); Gardner v. Chrysler Corp., 89 F.3d 729 (10th Cir.1996) (applying Kansas law); LaHue v. General Motors Corp., 716 F.Supp. 407 (W.D.Mo.1989) (applying Missouri common law); Carrasquilla v. Mazda Motor Corp., 166 F.Supp.2d 181 (M.D.Pa.2001) (applying Pennsylvania la......
-
Mann v. ST. CLAIR CTY. RD. COMM.
...to include design or construction of a motor vehicle as an included act, it could have done so. Id., citing LaHue v. Gen. Motors Corp., 716 F.Supp. 407 (W.D.Mo., 1989). Because the Supreme Court affirmed Klinke on different bases, the Court of Appeals decision in Klinke has been "modified" ......
-
Bishop v. Takata Corp.
...F.Supp.2d 1123, 1126 (D.Mont.1998); MacDonald v. General Motors Corp., 784 F.Supp. 486, 499 (M.D.Tenn.1992); LaHue v. General Motors Corp., 716 F.Supp. 407, 416-17 (W.D.Mo. 1989); Jordon v. General Motors Corp., 624 F.Supp. 72, 75 (E.D.La.1985); Estate of Hunter v. General Motors Corp., 729......