Schall v. Suzuki Motor of Am., Inc.
| Decision Date | 31 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO: 4:14-CV-00074-JHM |
| Citation | 450 F.Supp.3d 771 |
| Parties | Derek SCHALL, Plaintiff v. SUZUKI MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC., Suzuki Motor Corp., and Nissin Kogyo Co., Ltd., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky |
Anthony P. Ellis, Ellis Law Group, PLLC, Tyler S. Thompson, John W. Conway, Dolt, Thompson, Shepherd & Conway PSC, Louisville, KY, Christopher L. Rhoads, Rhoads & Rhoads, Owensboro, KY, for Plaintiff.
Casey Wood Hensley, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Louisville, KY, Jeffrey J. Mortier, Pro Hac Vice, Randall R. Riggs, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants Suzuki Motor of America, Inc., Suzuki Motor Corporation.
Christopher R. Cashen, Michael W. Smith, Christopher Lyle Jackson, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Lexington, KY, Robert M. Croft, Jr., Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Louisville, KY, for Defendant Nissin Kogyo Co., LTD.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ respective Motions for Summary Judgment. [DN 182; DN 203]. Fully briefed, these matters are ripe for decision.
Plaintiff Derek Schall was injured in a motorcycle accident on July 19, 2013, in Daviess County, Kentucky. [DN 5 ¶ 39]. He alleges that the accident was caused by defects in the front brake master cylinder on the motorcycle, a 2007 Suzuki GSX-R600. [Id. ] He brought an action against Suzuki Motor Corp. ("SMC"), the manufacturer of the motorcycle; Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. ("SMAI"), the importer of the motorcycle; and Nissin Kogyo Co., Ltd. ("Nissin"), the manufacturer of the subject brake master cylinder, alleging strict products liability and negligence. [Id. ¶¶ 41–52].
The GSX-R is a high-performance motorcycle designed and manufactured by SMC. Nissin produced the front brake master cylinder on this particular iteration of the GSX-R. The front brakes of the GSX-R use hydraulic brake pressure, generated from the operator's application of the brake lever acting on brake fluid, to slow the motorcycle. The brake system on this particular motorcycle was made up of several parts, including the brake master cylinder produced by Nissin. The actual brake master cylinder is also made up of several individual parts, all produced by Nissin—including a piston, a piston spring, and a reservoir port.
Nissin began the design and development of the brake master cylinder for the GSX-R in 2003. It designed and manufactured the component part in accordance with SMC's specifications and instructions. The instructions included locating the reservoir port horizontally, or on the side of, the brake master cylinder, to accommodate other parts. The brake master cylinder piston was made of a zinc alloy and a coating was applied to the piston's surface. The piston spring was made of steel.
It is undisputed that Schall purchased his 2007 GSX-R in the fall of 2012 from a previous owner. Schall says that he began regularly riding the motorcycle around May 2013 and that he did not have any issues with the brakes that he was aware of prior to the evening of his accident. On the night of July 19, 2013, Schall rode his motorcycle to a church group function in a rural area of Daviess County, Kentucky. He followed his neighbor to the party where they stayed for several hours. After 10:00 p.m., Schall stated that he saw his neighbor leaving the party and that he left right behind him. As Schall was driving eastbound on Kentucky Highway 142, a rural two-lane road, he encountered a curve. Though there is no definitive proof of his speed, Schall testified that he did not think he was traveling too fast to take the curve. Schall also testified that he was aware that he was approaching a curve because he saw his neighbor's taillights disappear for a moment. As he was navigating the curve, Schall claims that he went to apply his front brake and down shift, but the bike was not stopping. Schall explained that he thought he applied as much force to brake as he could and then attempted to apply his back brake. Upon applying his back brake, Schall stated that he felt the back tire lock up and decided his best option was to navigate the bike toward a cornfield on the opposite side of the road. Unbeknownst to Schall, a large drainage ditch lined the road before the cornfield. As Schall left the roadway, he encountered the ditch and crashed.
Emergency vehicles responded to the incident and transported Schall to Owensboro Regional Medical Center. He was thereafter airlifted to Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Due to a spinal fracture
, Schall is now paralyzed from the sternum down. The police report associated with Schall's accident identified the cause of the wreck as "inattention." No inspection of Schall's motorcycle was performed until April 14, 2014. The parties dispute why it took nine months for the inspection to occur.
Six months after Schall's accident, he received a notice from SMAI stating that the GSX-R front brakes were defective, and as a result, stopping distances could be extended. The timeline of when Defendants became aware that the GSX-R was experiencing brake performance issues, when they understood the cause of the problem, and when they decided what would be necessary to remedy it are central issues in this case. However, much of the timeline of the eventual recall is undisputed.
On October 18, 2013, SMAI notified the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration ("NHTSA") of a recall of certain Suzuki motorcycles, including model years 2004 through 2013 of the GSX-R600, manufactured by SMC. In its notice to the NHTSA, SMAI advised:
After a long-term service life of the motorcycle without changing the brake fluid, the brake fluid can deteriorate and absorb moisture. The brake piston inside the front brake master cylinder of some motorcycles may not have uniform surface treatment. This combination of conditions can lead to corrosion of the brake piston. Corrosion of the brake piston generates gas, which may not be adequately purged from the master cylinder due to the side position location of the reservoir port. Gas remaining in the master cylinder can affect braking power by reducing proper fluid pressure transmission to the front brake. Over time, as gas continues to slowly accumulate above the reservoir port, the front brake lever may develop a "spongy" feel and stopping distances may be extended, increasing the risk of a crash.
[DN 203-3 at 4]. SMAI advised NHTSA that to address the above condition, it would take the following action:
Suzuki distributors will conduct a safety-related recall campaign to replace the front brake master cylinder on affected motorcycles with a redesigned part that has the reservoir port at the top location of the master cylinder to allow better purging of gas, and has improved surface treatment for the brake piston. Several associated parts will also be replaced. SMAI currently anticipates that it will notify dealers about the details of the recall during the week of October 28, 2013, and will notify owners about the recall during the week of November 4, 2013.
Id. Thereafter, on November 18, 2013, SMC, through SMAI, began notifying riders like Schall of the defect through a recall notice.
On July 17, 2014, Schall filed a lawsuit against SMC, SMAI, and Nissin. The next day, Schall submitted an Amended Complaint. Therein, he alleges that all three defendants are liable for design and manufacturing defects under theories of both strict liability and negligence, negligent failure to warn, and negligent advertising, distribution, and promotion. Defendants filed a series of motions in this case in May 2019—including motions to determine the applicable law, nine motions to exclude Schall's expert testimony, motions for partial summary judgment, SMAI's separate motion for summary judgment, and SMAI, SMC, and Nissin's motions for summary judgment. In the instant Motions, Defendants move for summary judgment on all of Schall's claims.
Before the Court may grant a motion for summary judgment, it must find that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of specifying the basis for its motion and identifying the portion of the record that demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once the moving party satisfies this burden, the non-moving party thereafter must produce specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue of fact for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247–48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
Although the Court must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the non-moving party must do more than merely show that there is some "metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Instead, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the non-moving party to present specific facts showing that a genuine factual issue exists by "citing to particular parts of materials in the record" or by "showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence ... of a genuine dispute[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). "The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [non-moving party's] position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving party]." Anderson , 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
SMC moved with SMAI for summary judgment on each of Schall's claims. [DN 203]. Nissin independently moved for the same. [DN 182]. It is worth noting at the outset that, in a corresponding Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court granted SMAI's Motion for Summary based on the applicability of Kentucky's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCown v. Hyundai Motor Am.
...The state of the product, and whether a defect existed and caused harm, is elementally what matters. See Schall v. Suzuki Motor of Am., Inc., 450 F. Supp. 3d 771, 778 (W.D. Ky. 2020) ("In Kentucky, products liability focuses on the strict liability of a defendant for inadequacies in the qua......
-
Guilkey v. Truck
...causes of his injuries so long as a jury could reasonably conclude that a defect was the probable cause. See Schall v. Suzuki Motor of Am., 450 F. Supp. 3d 771, 785 (W.D. Ky. 2020); Low v. Lowe'sHome Ctrs., Inc., 771 F. Supp. 2d 739, 744 (E.D. Ky. 2011); cf. Perkins v. Hausladen, 828 S.W.2d......