Smith v. Cangieter, 05-3902.
| Decision Date | 11 September 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-3902.,No. 05-3904.,05-3902.,05-3904. |
| Citation | 462 F.3d 920 |
| Parties | Yvonne H. SMITH, Sebrina Martin, Stacey Schroeder, Errold Cangieter, Appellants, v. Helena J. CANGIETER, Defendant Alamo Rent-A-Car, LLC, Nissan North America, Inc., Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Appellees, Helena J. Cangieter, Cross Claimant, v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Cross Defendant, Helena J. Cangieter, Cross Claimant, Alamo Rent-A-Car, LLC, Cross Defendant. Yvonne H. Smith, Sebrina Martin, Stacey Schroeder, Errold Cangieter, Plaintiffs, v. Helena J. Cangieter, Appellant, Alamo Rent-A-Car, LLC, Nissan North America, Inc., Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Appellees, Helena J. Cangieter, Cross Claimant/Appellant, v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Cross Claimant/Appellee, Helena J. Cangieter, Cross Claimant/Appellant Alamo Rent-A-Car, LLC, Cross Claimant/Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Christopher Slusher, argued, Jefferson City, MO (Daniel C. Sanders, Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for appellant.
Jordan B. Cherrick, argued, St. Louis, MO (Robert L. Duckels, St. Louis, MO, W. Russell Welsh and Patricia A. Sexton, Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for appellees Nissan North America and Nissan Motor Co.
James T. Seigfreid, Jr., and Michael S. Cessna, argued, Kansas City, MO for Alamo Rent-a-Car.
Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
After an automobile accident killed four passengers in a rented 1998 Nissan Pathfinder, the decedents' survivors and the injured driver of another car brought this action against Nissan Motor Co., Nissan North America, Alamo Rent-A-Car, and the driver of the Pathfinder, Helena Cangieter. In support of their claims, the plaintiffs offered the expert testimony of Dr. Richard Ziernicki, but the district court1 found that the testimony did not meet the standards for reliability outlined in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and excluded the evidence. The district court then granted summary judgment in favor of the Nissan Motor Co., Nissan North America, and Alamo Rent-A-Car. The plaintiffs and defendant Helena Cangieter appeal, and we affirm.
The accident at issue occurred on October 24, 1998, when a rented 1998 Nissan Pathfinder swerved out of the passing lane on eastbound Interstate 70 and spun sideways, entering the median and rolling over into westbound traffic. All four of the Pathfinder's passengers were ejected and killed, and the Pathfinder's driver, Helena Cangieter, was injured. Stacey Schroeder, the driver of a Dodge Neon with which the Pathfinder collided, was also injured. When the accident was investigated, Helena Cangieter did not recall the events of the crash, but she later testified that she had noticed the vehicle "shaking" and "pulling to the left" as she drove it prior to the accident.
After the accident, Yvonne Smith, Sebrina Martin, and Errold Cangieter, all surviving relatives of the Pathfinder's passengers, and Schroeder, the driver of the Dodge Neon, sued Nissan, Alamo, and Helena Cangieter alleging various state-law claims, including strict liability for failure to warn and for product defect, and negligent supply of a dangerous instrumentality. Helena Cangieter cross-claimed raising similar allegations. The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that the Pathfinder had design defects that caused it to become unstable while in four-wheel drive, and that the defects caused the car brakes to lock and the vehicle to skid and roll over.2
The plaintiffs offered the report of a mechanical engineer, Richard Ziernicki, Ph.D., who submitted two reports offering an opinion about the safety of the Pathfinder's four-wheel drive system. According to Ziernicki, the "use of four-wheel drive on dry, asphalt roadways results in dynamic instability of part-time four-wheel drive vehicles during steering and braking maneuvers, especially at highway speeds." He opined that the "dynamic instability of the vehicle described by Ms. Cangieter and her eventual loss of control are consistent with the type of stability problems that would be experienced while driving in four-wheel drive on dry asphalt at highway speeds." (Pls.' App. at 167). Ziernicki explained that "[p]art-time four-wheel drive systems ... mechanically lock[] the front drive shaft to the rear drive shaft," thus "transfer[ring] power from the drive axle to the non-driven axle and forc[ing] the front wheels to rotate at the same average velocity as the rear wheels." (Id. at 195). In Ziernicki's opinion, this can cause problems because "when turning, vehicle and roadways geometry requires all four wheels to turn at different velocities." (Id.). While "[o]n low-traction surfaces, ... the wheels can slip," on "dry pavement and other high traction surfaces the wheels do not slip easily and the mechanical requirement that the wheels turn at the same rate fights against the geometric requirement that the wheels rotate at different rates during a turn," resulting in "jerky, erratic handling" during turns. (Id.).
Ziernicki further opined that "[t]o a driver like Helena Cangieter ... who had limited experience with this rental vehicle, this varying vehicle behavior would be confusing," and in his opinion, "erratic and variable vehicle handling likely confused [Cangieter] and caused the vehicle to react unexpectedly to [her] steering inputs, leading to vehicle instability and rollover." (Id. at 196). In addition, he noted that the "warnings, cautions, and other instructions in the vehicle and the user's manual are defective due to their inadequate warning to operators of dynamic instabilities caused by operating in four wheel drive and the potentially severe consequences of those instabilities." (Id. at 167). Ziernicki's report also offered an opinion about the design of the front passenger restraint system, the back hatch door latch, and the rear seatbelts.
The defendants moved in limine to exclude Ziernicki's testimony, and the district court held a hearing to consider whether the evidence met the standards for scientific reliability outlined in Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert. After hearing from Ziernicki and considering his report, the district court considered each category of evidence separately but concluded that in each area, the lack of testing peer review, or acceptance by the scientific community undermined the reliability of Ziernicki's opinion. With respect to the safety of the part-time four-wheel drive system in particular, the court acknowledged that there was no dispute that during a turn in the operation of the four-wheel drive system, the wheels travel different distances, causing "[s]lippage of the tire with the least traction." (R. Doc. 461, at 4). The court found, however, that scientific evidence was lacking to show the "effect the slippage has on control of the vehicle" and whether slippage "renders the vehicle unsafe, and if so, at what speed." (Id.).
Shortly after concluding that Ziernicki's opinion should be excluded, the court considered Alamo Rent-A-Car's motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that the three claims against Alamo—for failure to warn, negligently supplying a dangerous instrumentality, and breach of implied warranty of fitness—should be dismissed because the plaintiffs and cross-claimant had not come forward with any admissible evidence that the Pathfinder was defective. Nissan Motor Co. and Nissan North America also moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs and cross-claimant had not put forth any admissible evidence to show that the Pathfinder was defective or that any defect caused the fatal accident. The district court granted that motion as well.3
The issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in excluding the plaintiffs' proffered evidence regarding the stability and handling of the Nissan Pathfinder in four-wheel drive at highway speeds on dry pavement, and concerning the adequacy of the Pathfinder's warnings on the same question. We review the district court's exclusion of the evidence for abuse of discretion. Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 142-43, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997).
Testimony by a qualified expert that bears on "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge" that "will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. FCA US LLC, CIVIL NO. 4:15–cv–00424–SBJ
...2786 ); Pro Serv. Auto., L.L.C. v. Lenan Corp. , 469 F.3d 1210, 1216 (8th Cir. 2006) (listing same factors; quoting Smith v. Cangieter , 462 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Daubert , 509 U.S. at 592–94, 113 S.Ct. 2786 )).These factors are not exclusive, however, and they need not be c......
-
Klingenberg v. Vulcan Ladder USA, LLC
...Industries, Inc. , 97 F.3d 293, 297–98 (8th Cir. 1996) (affirming exclusion of "wholly speculative" opinion), and Smith v. Cangieter , 462 F.3d 920, 924–25 (8th Cir. 2006) (affirming exclusion of opinion connected to the facts by only the expert’s ipse dixit ). He did not "simply speculat[e......
-
Olson v. Macalester Coll.
...four factors relevant to the reliability inquiry because each of those factors assumes the presence of a “theory or technique.” See Smith, 462 F.3d at 923. except for his diagnosis of Olson, Dr. Dattilio identifies no theory or technique underlying his other opinions. Except to the extent i......
-
Cedillo v. Sec'y Of Health And Human Serv.
...522 U.S. 136, 146, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595, 113 S.Ct. 2786); see also Smith v. Cangieter, 462 F.3d 920, 924 (8th Cir.2006) (finding no error in the use of Daubert to asses whether a particular conclusion may be reliably drawn from the evidence......