Opinion
Case No. 96-75380
March 11, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Both plaintiff and defendants have filed numerous motions in this matter in anticipation of trial. This memorandum opinion and order addresses each of these motions in turn.
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [195-1]
In his motion, plaintiff contends that in light of expert testimony given in depositions and affidavits, there are no genuine issues of material fact which would merit giving this case to a jury. He contends that it is clear that he was wearing his seat belt at the time of the accident, that the seatbelt in his car was defective, that the seat belt buckle released during the accident sequence, and that its release was the cause of his injuries. (Pl. Mem. in Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 3, 8, 9, 12.)
Facially, however, each of the contentions advanced by the experts has raised questions of fact. See Harris v. General Motors, Inc., 201 F.3d 800, 802 (6th Cir. 2000) (conflicting evidence, including affidavits of automobile manufacturer's experts and driver's contrary personal evidence, raised triable issues of fact as to liability, thus precluding summary judgment).
Only when testimony is presented during trial can a judgment be made as to its relevance and weight. Accordingly, since these are issues for the jury, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is denied.
2. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Other Incidents [193-1]
In its opinion, the Sixth Circuit noted that 188 customer complaints are relevant and probative evidence because they may be analogous to the case at hand. Nemir v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Am., No. 96-753 80, 2001 WL 223775, at *7 (6th Cir. Mar. 2, 2001). Specifically, the court noted that "[t]he correct term that must be found in customer complains, in order to render the complaints analogous to the case at bar, would be `intermittent partial latching.' However, this term is beyond the ken of the average car owner. Instead, the car owner is likely to explain the problem using terms such as `sometimes pops out,' or `not staying locked all the time,' or `does not work at times.' The vernacular possibilities are endless." Nemir v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Am., No. 96-75380, 2001 WL 223775, at *7 (6th Cir. Mar. 2, 2001). The parties together have deposed thirteen individuals who were among those that filed customer complaints. In accordance with the ruling of the Sixth Circuit, the customer complaints and these depositions may be probative and relevant.
Defendants' motion is denied.
3. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine Regarding Exclusion of the Absence of Other Accidents [197-1]
As noted above, the Sixth Circuit found that the customer complaints present factual issues to be determined by the jury.
Since plaintiff may introduce these customer complaints, defendant must also be permitted to argue that the complaints are not analogous to the alleged partial latching which occurred in this case. As written, plaintiffs motion would prevent the defendants from distinguishing these 188 customer complaints from the case at hand with a blanket prohibition against "arguing that there is an absence of other accidents . . ." (Pl. Mot. in Limine at 2.) As noted by the Sixth Circuit, the customer complaints present factual issues to be decided by the jury.
For these reasons, Plaintiff's motion is denied.
4. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude References to or Evidence of Defendants' Investigative Procedures and Record Keeping of Customer Contacts [183-1]
As noted above, the customer complaints regarding the intermittent partial latch phenomenon may be admissible evidence in accordance with the ruling of the Sixth Circuit. Nemir v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Am., No. 96-753 80, 2001 WL 223775, at *7 (6th Cir. Mar. 2, 2001).
Investigative procedures and record keeping of customer contacts are not relevant to the existence of an alleged design defect in the seat belt buckle in question. An analysis as to how defendants categorized, investigated and kept records of the customer complaints will not assist the trier of fact in its determination as to whether the seat belt buckle had a design defect.
Defendants' motion is granted.
5. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Argument and/or Jury Instruction of Compliance with Governmental Standards and to Exclude Evidence of Compliance with FMVSS 209 [198-1]
Unless and until I rule that the seat belt buckle presents an inherently unreasonable risk of danger, thus allowing plaintiff to proceed under a legal theory of strict liability, this motion addresses matters that are premature.
Plaintiffs motion is denied.
6. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine with respect to Defenses Raised in Response to Strict Liability Claims [199-1]
Unless and until I rule that the seat belt buckle presents an inherently unreasonable risk of danger, thus allowing plaintiff to proceed under a legal theory of strict liability, this motion addresses matters that are premature.
Plaintiffs motion is denied.
7. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Preclude Discussion of Dismissed Claims/Allegations [201-1]
Discussion of dismissed claims is neither probative nor relevant to the determination whether the seat belt buckle in question had a design defect.
Plaintiffs motion is granted.
8. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine Regarding Judicial Notice of NHTSA Web Site and Authentication of NHTSA letter as a Public Record [203-1]
While the letter may be used in argument, and for that purpose judicial notice may be taken, the letter cannot be presented to the jury because any alleged interpretation of NHTSA regulations is a matter of law to be decided by me.
Plaintiffs motion is denied.
9. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Preclude Discussion of and/or Reference to this Court's July 30, 1999 Opinion [208-1]
The opinion of this court may not be read aloud to the jury. However, some matters and points mentioned in the opinion may prove to be relevant and will not be excluded at trial.
Plaintiffs motion is denied.
10. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Unfairly Prejudicial References to Mitsubishi Motors Corp.'s and Takata Corp.'s Nationality and to Japanese Culture [184-1]
Since unfairly prejudicial references to defendants' nationality and to Japanese culture lack probative value, and are prejudicial, they are inadmissible.
Defendants' motion is granted.
11. Defendants' Motion to Bar any References to or Evidence of Pre-Trial Discovery Disputes [185-1]
Discussion of pre-trial discovery disputes will not assist the triers of fact in their determination as to whether the seat belt buckle in this case suffers from a design defect. Such discussion lacks probative value.
Defendants' motion is granted.
12. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Opinion Testimony of Alexander Zhukov Regarding an Alleged Lack of Pre-Impact Evidence [191-1]
The sufficiency of pre-impact evidence is decided by the judge as a matter of law and not the jury. As Alexander Zhukov has no opinion as to pre-impact evidence, his testimony does not assist me in my determination as to whether there is evidence sufficient to a reasonable degree of certainty regarding pre-impact events.
Defendants' motion is granted.
13. Defendant's Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Advertisements [189-1]
Per agreement of the parties, this motion is granted.
14. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude any Reference as to when the Plaintiff Employed an Attorney, on which Date this Case was Filed, and Why this Matter is Pending in this Venue [217-1]
Evidence regarding when the plaintiff employed an attorney, on which date the case was filed, and why this matter is pending before me are not probative and therefore inadmissible.
Plaintiffs motion is granted.