Wickersham v. Ford Motor Co.

• Decision Date: 13 May 2021
• Docket Number: No. 17-2131,17-2131
• Citation: 997 F.3d 526
• Parties: Crystal L. WICKERSHAM; Crystal L. Wickersham, as Personal Representative of the Estate of John Harley Wickersham, Jr., Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant - Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

997 F.3d 526

Crystal L. WICKERSHAM; Crystal L. Wickersham, as Personal Representative of the Estate of John Harley Wickersham, Jr., Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 17-2131

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: May 8, 2018

Decided: May 13, 2021

ARGUED: Adam Howard Charnes, KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kathleen Chewning Barnes, BARNES LAW FIRM, LLC, Hampton, South Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Carmelo B. Sammataro, TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; Thurston H. Webb, KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ronnie L. Crosby, PETERS, MURDAUGH, PARKER, ELTZROTH & DETRICK, Hampton, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part with instructions by published opinion. Judge Floyd wrote the opinion in which Judge Niemeyer and Judge Motz joined.

FLOYD, Circuit Judge:

This case stems from negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty claims filed under South Carolina law by John Wickersham's estate and wife (collectively, "Wickersham") against Ford Motor Company, asserting that Wickersham's Ford Escape airbag system was defective and seeking various damages related to the accident and Wickersham's untimely death by suicide. Ford appeals the district court's judgment following a jury trial, arguing that the court erred (1) in admitting an expert's opinion testimony as to injury causation; (2) in applying an "uncontrollable impulse" exception to the general rule that death by suicide breaks the causal chain in wrongful-death actions; and (3) in declining to reduce the jury award based on the jury's finding of Wickersham's comparative fault in causing his enhanced injuries. After certifying two questions of state law to the Supreme Court of South Carolina, we now affirm in part and vacate and remand in part with instructions.

I.

Wickersham was a pharmacist with a history of depression, bipolar disorder

, and suicidal thoughts. On February 3, 2011, during a rainstorm, Wickersham drove his 2010 Ford Escape through a T-intersection going roughly forty-two miles per hour, hit a ten-inch curb, went "airborne for some portion of time, hit the ground," J.A. 1553, and crashed into a tree forty-five feet from the road. Wickersham suffered significant facial injuries—which required multiple surgeries, including one to remove his left eye—and the loss of his ability to smell or chew food.

After his accident, Wickersham had difficulty controlling his pain, despite many visits to pain specialists, surgeons, and doctors. He also continued to suffer from depression and was voluntarily hospitalized for severe depression and suicidal thoughts on April 6, 2012. On June 6, 2012, Wickersham began receiving nerve treatments at an Emory University pain clinic. But when his COBRA insurance expired, Wickersham became concerned he would be unable to afford the out-of-pocket costs of treatment. Because he could not be on pain medication while working as a pharmacist, Wickersham struggled to maintain employment after his accident, causing his family a great deal of financial hardship. On July 21, 2012—almost a year and a half after his accident—Wickersham died by suicide after consuming a lethal dose of methadone

.

Wickersham's wife and estate filed separate actions against Ford in the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas. Wickersham's wife filed an action for loss of consortium and Wickersham's estate filed an action for wrongful death and survivorship. Each action alleged three products-liability claims based on negligence, strict liability, and breach of express warranty and the implied warranty of merchantability. The claims asserted that the airbag system in Wickersham's Ford Escape was defective, relying upon the crashworthiness doctrine. That doctrine permits recovery for enhanced injuries caused by a car company's failure to design cars that account for the risks inherent to car crashes. See Donze v. Gen. Motors, LLC , 420 S.C. 8, 800 S.E.2d 479, 480–81 (2017). Ford removed both cases to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina pursuant to diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Ford moved for summary judgment, arguing in relevant part that the company was not liable for Wickersham's wrongful-death action because any defective design could not be the proximate cause of Wickersham's death by suicide under South Carolina law. The district court denied Ford's motion, holding that Wickersham could prevail on the wrongful-death action if he proved that he suffered injuries due to Ford's defective design that gave rise to "an uncontrollable impulse"—an exception to the general rule that death by suicide breaks the causal chain in wrongful-death actions. Ford orally renewed its contentions at the close of Wickersham's case-in-chief and again following the close of Wickersham's rebuttal case.

The parties proceeded to a two-week jury trial. At trial, Wickersham asserted that the defective airbag caused his severe facial injuries, and that if the airbag had either not deployed in this crash or not deployed so late, he would not have suffered these injuries. Ford argued that Wickersham was out of position when the airbag deployed, and his injuries were caused when his face impacted the gearshift lever. Dr. Judith Skoner, the otolaryngologist and facial plastic surgeon who treated and performed surgery on Wickersham after his accident, opined at her deposition and at trial that his injuries were likely caused when the airbag impacted his face. Prior to trial and again after her testimony, Ford moved to exclude Dr. Skoner's expert opinion on the cause of Wickersham's injuries, which the district court denied.

The jury found in Wickersham's favor as to all claims and awarded him $4.65 million in damages—including $2.75 million in damages related to Wickersham's death.¹ The jury also found Wickersham was thirty percent at fault for his injuries but was instructed by the district court not to reduce damages on this basis. The district court entered judgment for Wickersham in accordance with the jury verdict. Ford submitted typical post-trial motions, moving for a new trial, to alter or amend the judgment based on the jury's comparative fault finding, and for renewed judgment as a matter of law as to the wrongful-death action.

Ford makes three arguments on appeal. First, Ford asserts that "[t]he district court abused its discretion by permitting Dr. Skoner to opine on the cause of Wickersham's injuries." Opening Br. at 35. Second, Ford argues that the court misapprehended South Carolina law on proximate cause in wrongful-death cases involving death by suicide. Ford believes this legal error caused the district court to both improperly deny its motion for judgment as a matter of law and improperly instruct the jury, requiring a new trial on this claim. Third, Ford appeals the district court's denial of its Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment based on the jury's finding that Wickersham was thirty percent at fault for his injuries. Ford contends that South Carolina law permits comparative fault as a defense in strict liability and breach of warranty claims under these facts.

To resolve Ford's appeal, we certified two questions to the Supreme Court of South Carolina, and the court's answers provided us with guidance in deciding several of these issues. Wickersham v. Ford Motor Co. , 738 F. App'x 127 (4th Cir. 2018) ; Wickersham v. Ford Motor Co. , 432 S.C. 384, 853 S.E.2d 329 (2020). Armed now with the court's responses, we address each of Ford's arguments in turn.

II.

First, Ford argues that the district court abused its discretion in admitting Dr. Skoner's testimony that Ford's defective airbag system caused Wickersham's facial injuries. Ford contends that under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, this testimony should have been excluded because it was unreliable. In particular, Ford focuses on whether Dr. Skoner used a reliable methodology to form her opinions. The district court concluded that Dr. Skoner's testimony "bears strong resemblance to a technique known as ‘differential diagnosis.’ " J.A. 382; see also Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB , 178 F.3d 257, 262–63 (4th Cir. 1999) (describing differential diagnosis as "a standard scientific technique of identifying the cause of a medical problem by eliminating the likely causes until the most probable one is isolated" and "hold[ing] that a reliable differential diagnosis provides a valid foundation for an expert opinion"). But Ford argues that Dr. Skoner did not conduct a methodologically sound differential diagnosis and provided little more than conjecture or "an educated guess" as to the cause of Wickersham's injuries. Opening Br. at 42. Ford believes it was substantially prejudiced by the admission of this testimony because causation was essential to each of Wickersham's claims, jurors were likely to be swayed by Dr. Skoner's role as an unpaid expert, and Wickersham relied heavily on Dr. Skoner's opinion in closing arguments.

"[A] court of appeals is to apply an abuse-of-discretion standard when it reviews a trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony." Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael , 526 U.S. 137, 152, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999) (cleaned up). Any abuse of discretion is reviewed for harmless error, and a new trial is required only when the admission of evidence affected the substantial rights of a party. See 28 U.S.C. § 2111 ; McDonough Power Equip. v. Greenwood , 464 U.S. 548, 554, 104 S.Ct. 845, 78 L.Ed.2d 663 (1984) (noting that § 2111 imposes on appellate courts "the same [harmless error] principle as that found in" Rule 61); Tire Eng'g & Distrib., LLC v. Shandong Linglong Rubber Co. , 682 F.3d 292, 315 (4th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (noting Rule 61 requires the error to be ...