Wright v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 2005 Ohio 3494 (OH 6/27/2005), 03CA2.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Citation | 2005 Ohio 3494 |
| Docket Number | No. 03CA4.,No. 03CA2.,No. 03CA3.,03CA2.,03CA3.,03CA4. |
| Parties | Crystal Wright, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants/Appellees, v. Suzuki Motor Corp., et al., Defendants-Appellants/Appellees.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Decision Date | 27 June 2005 |
Page 1
v.
Suzuki Motor Corp., et al., Defendants-Appellants/Appellees.1
Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court.
Mark A. Foley and Nancy L. Dorner, 471 East Broad Street, Suite 1820, Columbus, Ohio 43215, Counsel for Crystal Wright and Larry Wright.
Randy Happeney, 144 E. Main Street, P.O. Box 667, Lancaster, Ohio 43130-0667; Christopher F. Parker, Goranson, Parker & Bella, L.P.A., 405 Madison Avenue, Suite 2200, Toledo, Ohio 43604, Counsel for Ackers, Inc., dba Ask Powersports & Mary Jo Ackers.2
PER CURIAM.
{¶ 1} This is a consolidated appeal from a Meigs County
Page 2
Common Pleas Court judgment following a jury trial in a personal injury action arising out of single-vehicle motorcycle accident. The jury returned verdicts in Crystal Wright's and her minor children's (Kristen Jacquard and Amber Jacquard) favor regarding: (1) their negligence claims against Ackers, Inc. dba Ask Powersports,3 Mary Jo Ackers, Steve Wiseman, and Todd Coleman, the motorcycle dealership and the sellers of the motorcycle (the Ackers defendants); (2) their product liability claim against American Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor Corporation, the manufacturers of the motorcycle (the Suzuki defendants); and (3) their negligence claim against Timothy H. Brown, the motorcycle driver. The jury awarded Wright $5,278,703 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages. The jury declined to award monetary damages for Wright's children's loss of consortium claims and declined to award them punitive damages. The jury determined that Wright was entitled to attorney fees, and after a hearing, the court awarded Wright $233,558 in attorney fees. The court denied Wright's claim for prejudgment interest.
{¶ 2} In Case No. 03CA2, the Ackers defendants4 raise the following assignments of error:
Page 3
First Assignment of Error:
"The trial court erred to the prejudice of defendant-appellants when it failed to exclude expert testimony which had not been supplemented as required by Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)."
Second Assignment of Error:
"The trial court erred to the prejudice of defendant-appellants when it failed to direct a verdict in favor of all defendants at the close of plaintiffs' case in chief."
Third Assignment of Error:
"The trial court erred to the prejudice of defendant-appellants when it failed to direct a verdict in favor of all defendant-appellants on the issue of punitive damages at the close of plaintiff's opening statement."
Fourth Assignment of Error:
"The trial court erred to the prejudice of defendant-appellants when it failed to direct a verdict as to defendant's [sic] Ackers, Inc., ask powersports, and steve wiseman on the issue of punitive damages at the close of plaintiffs' case in chief."
Fifth Assignment of Error:
"The trial court erred to the prejudice of defendant-appellants when it failed to grant defendant-appellants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and, in the alternative, a new trial, based on the multiple errors of law committed by the trial court throughout these proceedings and given the fact that the jury's verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence."
Sixth Assignment of Error:
"The trial court erred in awarding attorney fees given the absence of a basis for punitive damages."
Seventh Assignment of Error:
Page 4
"The trial court erred to the prejudice of defendant-appellants when it struck the affidavit of Paul Ackers."
{¶ 3} In Case No. 03CA3, Crystal Wright, plaintiff below, raises the following assignments of error:
First Assignment of Error:
"The trial court erred in granting the motion for directed verdict made during trial in favor of defendants Mary Jo Ackers and Todd Coleman on the claim for punitive damages."
Second Assignment of Error:
"The trial court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for prejudgment interest."
{¶ 4} In Case No. 03CA4, Larry Wright, as guardian for Kristen Jacquard and Amber Jacquard, plaintiffs below, raises the following assignments of error:
First Assignment of Error:
"The trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of larry wright, as guardian of Kristen Jacquard and Amber Jacquard, as against all defendants, but awarding compensatory damages of $0.00."
Second Assignment of Error:
"The trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of larry wright, as guardian of Kristen Jacquard and Amber Jacquard, as against defendants Ackers, Inc. and Steven Wiseman on their claim for punitive damages, but awarding $0.00."
Third Assignment of Error:
"The trial court erred in granting the motion for directed verdict made during trial in favor of defendants Mary Jo Ackers and Todd Coleman on the claim for punitive damages."
Page 5
{¶ 5} On August 10, 2000, Crystal Wright suffered paralyzing injuries in a one-vehicle motorcycle accident while a passenger on the Suzuki Katana motorcycle that her boyfriend, Brown, drove. Brown purchased the motorcycle that day from the Ackers dealership in Lancaster. At the time of Brown's purchase, the motorcycle undisputably had a manufacturing defect: the front tire leaked air due to a defective rim.
{¶ 6} Wright subsequently filed a complaint against: (1) the Suzuki defendants; (2) the Ackers defendants; and (3) Brown. She alleged negligence and strict liability claims and sought punitive damages. The complaint also contained loss of consortium claims on behalf of Wright's minor children.
{¶ 7} At trial, the crucial issue was whether the defective tire rim proximately caused the accident and Wright's resulting injuries. Before trial, Wright's primary expert, Lawrence Gregory DuBois, was unable to opine within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that the leaking tire rim proximately caused the accident. Instead, he opined that the leaking tire rim as a proximate cause of the accident was consistent with his investigation. DuBois opined: "It is my professional opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific probability that the conclusion that the loss of air pressure from the manufacturing defect was a proximate cause of the accident is consistent with the available information and physical evidence." Because he could not express his opinion within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, the Ackers defendants requested the trial court to exclude his
Page 6
opinion. The trial court subsequently concluded that for DuBois's opinion to be admissible, he must express his opinion within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.
{¶ 8} Beginning on February 10, 2002, and continuing through March 1, 2002, the court held a jury trial. After Wright's counsel completed opening statement, the Ackers defendants moved for a directed verdict regarding her punitive damage claim. They argued that Wright did not mention in opening statement any type of conduct to establish her entitlement to punitive damages. The court took the matter under advisement.
{¶ 9} At trial, Wright's first witness, former ASK employee Joshua Eck, testified that in June of 2000, he performed the set-up for the Suzuki motorcycle that Brown purchased. Sometime after setting it up, Eck noticed the flat front tire. He took the motorcycle inside to check for a leak. Unable to find a leak, he filled the tire with air and put it back on display. He did not notify anyone of the apparent leak. Later, Eck again discovered the tire flat. Eck pointed this out to the set-up manager, Steve Wiseman, and Wiseman stated that he also had noticed the flat tire. Eck again tested the tire to attempt to find the source of the leak but still could not determine the source. Eventually, Eck learned that the tire rim was the source of the leak. Eck advised Wiseman that the rim was "bad" because air seemed to be coming through the rim. Wiseman said that he would order a new rim for the wheel. Eck put the wheel back on the motorcycle, but does not recall whether anyone instructed him
Page 7
to do so. Eck stated that he did not put the bike on the sales floor, but at some point, Wiseman told Eck to get the bike ready for sale.
{¶ 10} Pursuant to Wiseman's request, Eck performed the pre-delivery inspection before Brown took possession. Eck stated that the pre-delivery process involves informing the customer about the motorcycle and that the entire process took about five minutes. He checked the tire pressure and it was 33 pounds per square inch (psi). Eck did not road-test the motorcycle, even though the certification form stated that he did. Furthermore, neither Eck nor anyone at ASK repaired or replaced the defective wheel rim before delivery to Brown.
{¶ 11} Eck testified that he did not believe the dealership should have allowed Brown to take the motorcycle with the defective tire rim. Eck stated that he believed the motorcycle with its leaking front tire to be defective and that he and Wiseman were upset that the bike was leaving without fixing the front tire leak. Eck thought the bike was dangerous to ride and that the dealership should not have sold it. Eck testified that when Brown took the bike, he knew "there was a high probability and almost a certainty that [the] tire was going to leak at some time while that bike was in [Brown's] possession."
{¶ 12} ASK salesman Todd Coleman stated that he met with Brown on August 10, 2000 when Brown came to take delivery of the motorcycle. Coleman stated that as of that date, no one had indicated to him that the bike was defective and should not be
Page 8
sold. Coleman stated that he overheard a conversation between Wiseman and Brown. He heard Wiseman inform Brown that the tire was slowly leaking air and that Wiseman did not want Brown to drive it. Wiseman advised Brown that if possible, he should not take the bike home that day but...
To continue reading
Request your trial