Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Laliberte
| Decision Date | 15 February 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D08-2211.,4D08-2211. |
| Citation | 52 So.3d 31 |
| Parties | MITSUBISHI MOTORS CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Peter LALIBERTE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Scott T. Laliberte, deceased, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Wendy F. Lumish and Jeffrey A. Cohen of Carlton Fields, P.A., Miami, for appellant.
Julie H. Littky-Rubin of Clark, Fountain, La Vista, Prather, Keen & Littky-Rubin, LLP, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
We grant the plaintiff's motion for rehearing, vacate our prior opinion, and issue this opinion in its place. Having taken a second comprehensive review of the arguments and record, we now affirm.
The defendant, an auto manufacturer, appealed a multi-million dollar judgment, which resulted from the tragic death of the plaintiff's son. Two issues were raised. The first concerned the trial court's remarks to the jury during the jury's inspection of two exemplar vehicles. The second concerned the trial court's exclusion of statistical information and demonstrative evidence to be used during the testimony of the defense experts.
The plaintiff's son was a front seat passenger of a 2000 Mitsubishi Nativa, a sport utility vehicle, when the driver lost control, causing the vehicle to roll over multiple times. The passenger was partially ejected through the rear passenger window, causing his head to come in contact with the ground. He died from those injuries. The driver remained inside the vehicle and sustained no permanent injuries.
The decedent's father, and personal representative of the estate, filed a products liability action against Mitsubishi, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. After numerous pre-trial motions and hearings, many of the claims were resolved, leaving for trial the plaintiff's claim of design defects in the passenger seat belt and seat back.
The court heard several motions in limine prior to trial, among them the plaintiff's sixty-seven page Second Motion in Limine, which sought the exclusion of some defense expert testimony, statistical information, and demonstrative evidence. Numerous grounds for the exclusion of the evidence were raised including hearsay, lack of substantial similarity, relevance, confusing and misleading evidence, and that the evidence was more prejudicial than probative. The trial court ultimately entered an order granting the motion in part. The court's order stated:
Rather than exclude the evidence entirely, the trial court set the stage for the trial where the defendant could raise the evidentiary issues subject to laying the proper foundation for admission of the evidence and establishing its relevancy.
During the trial, the court ultimately excluded the statistical information and demonstrative evidence. In excluding the spit test, the court stated:
As to the other items, there are a host of objections, but the one I find most compelling is that these are alleged demonstrative aids with different crash scenarios, different seats, different forces. If the purpose was truly to demonstrate to the jury the physical forces at play, there are ways that could have been—that that information could have been conveyed by demonstrative aids that didn't have the overwhelming possibility of misleading the jury.
With regard to the admission of the other tests at trial, the court ruled:
And he can certainly say that that's his opinion, but the same way he couldn't talk about the spit experiments, we're not getting him to describe every experiment he's done and use that as a way to put what otherwise would be impermissible information in front of the jury.
The court also found the plaintiff's hearsay objection to the statistical information well-founded.
During the plaintiff's case, the court allowed the jurors to inspect two Mitsubishi Montero sport utility vehicles.1 While the jurors were inspecting the vehicles, both front passenger seat backs failed to fully recline. It was later learned that this problem was caused by a coin in each of the seats' reclining mechanisms.2
When the first problem arose, counsel agreed the court should instruct the jury that there was a problem with the passenger seats and that they should operate like the driver seats. When instructing the jurors, the trial court told them there was a defect in the right front passenger seat. Moments later, when the jurors reported the right front seat back in the other exemplar vehicle did not recline, the judge again conferred with the lawyers. They again agreed that the court could indicate that the seat was supposed to operate in the same manner as the driver's seat. For a second time, the trial judge used the word "defect" in giving the instruction. After the second instruction, one of the jurors questioned what the judge meant by the use of the word "defect." The judge responded, "No, it simply doesn't operate or something similar to that."
Mitsubishi moved for a mistrial, arguing the trial court's use of the term "defect" was highly prejudicial because it was a comment on the evidence and the ultimate issue in dispute. The court denied the motion, finding there was no reasonable doubt the jurors understood the coin in the recliner mechanism was wholly unrelatedto the alleged design defect. The court then gave the following curative instruction.
Immediately before lunch on Thursday you viewed exemplars of both the 2000 and 2000.5 Mitsubishi Montero. The exemplars were provided by Plaintiff. As you know, the right front seats in both vehicles did not recline. We have since learned that a quarter was located in the inboard inertial locking mechanism of each seat that prevented the seats from reclining. Mistakenly during the view, I referred to the failure of the right front passenger seats to recline as a defect. This was a misstatement by me. Obviously the inboard inertial locking mechanism did not operate correctly because there was a quarter in each mechanism preventing proper operation. Simply put, the exemplars' right front passenger seats' inability to recline during your inspection was caused solely by the placement of the coins which operated as stops, and had nothing to do with the mechanism's design or manufacture. I now instruct you, that when considering the evidence in this case, you must completely disregard the issue with the right front passenger seats' on the exemplars inability to recline. If you anticipate any problem following this instruction, please raise your hand.
No member of the jury responded either verbally or by hand gesture.
Mitsubishi argues the trial court's comments constituted a statement on the evidence and the ultimate issue to be decided, in violation of section 90.106, Florida Statutes (2008). See also Jacques v. State, 883 So.2d 902, 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Mitsubishi seeks to have us apply a de novo standard of review. In contrast, the plaintiff argues that the proper standard of review is abuse of discretion.
Because the issue involves the trial court's ruling on a motion for mistrial, we review this issue under an abuse of discretion standard. See Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537, 546 (Fla.1999). Under that standard, inadvertent and adequately-cured comments by a judge are not grounds for a mistrial. See Baker v. State, 578 So.2d 37, 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
The record before us reveals the trial court's reference to a "defect" in the seats was inadvertent and not calculated to serve as a comment on the evidence. Moreover, the trial court quickly provided a curative instruction. When the court inquired if any juror was unable to follow the instruction, no juror responded affirmatively. We therefore hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mitsubishi's motion for mistrial.
Mitsubishi next claims the trial court's exclusion of the statistical information and demonstrative evidence left it stranded with bare expert opinions "drained of force and color." Mitsubishi argues the plaintiff capitalized on these evidentiary rulings during its closing argument, and implied the defense expert opinions were not supported by science. In sum, Mitsubishi argues the exclusion of the evidence resulted in extreme prejudice, entitling it to a new trial. We disagree.
The plaintiff alleged that the front passenger seatbelt was defectively designed because it allowed too much slack in the belt during...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Other physical proof
...and, to a lesser extent, prejudice, the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Laliberte , 52 So.3d 31 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). 4.2 PHOTOGRAPHS Relevance. The test as to the admissibility of photographs is relevance. If a photograph is a correct repres......