Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Gentry

14 Citing cases

  1. Parks v. Hyundai

    294 Ga. App. 112 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 5 times

    Contrary to the Parkses' contention, the trial court did not err by explaining in its summary judgment order that the preemptive effect of FMVSS 208 would preclude them from offering evidence concerning the alternative of installing a lap/shoulder seat belt in the rear center seat; evidence comparing the operation of a lap-only belt to a lap/shoulder belt in the accident, or evidence showing that a lap/shoulder belt would have reduced or eliminated the injuries at issue. As the trial court recognized in the order, unless Hyundai subsequently "opened the door" to or otherwise invited the introduction of this type of evidence at trial (as we found in Volkswagen of America v. Gentry, 254 Ga. App. 888, 889-891 ( 564 SE2d 733) (2002)), its only purpose in this case would be to directly or indirectly advance a preempted claim. While so ruling, the trial court's order nevertheless made clear that FMVSS 208 did not preempt the Parkses' claim that the specific design of the lap-only seat belt system installed by Hyundai was defective.

  2. Cisson v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

    86 F. Supp. 3d 510 (S.D.W. Va. 2015)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses

    United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991, 994 (4th Cir.1997) ; see also Fed.R.Evid. 402 (โ€œRelevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:....โ€). Bard contends that its compliance with 510(k) demonstrated the reasonableness of the Avaulta Plus's design and was therefore relevant and admissible evidence. (See Def.'s Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for a New Trial (โ€œDef.'s Mem. in Supp.โ€) [Docket 451], at 4โ€“5 (quoting Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Gentry, 254 Ga.App. 888, 564 S.E.2d 733, 738 (2002) (stating that a jury is โ€œentitled to consider the issue of a manufacturer's compliance with federal standards or regulations in determining whether the product design was a reasonable oneโ€))). Given the Supreme Court precedent on the meaning and purpose of 510(k) clearance, Bard's argument fails and cannot support the rarely applied remedy of a new trial.

  3. Hamby v. DaimlerChrysler

    Civil Action No. 1:03-CV-0937-CAP (N.D. Ga. Dec. 5, 2005)

    In reviewing Mack, however, the court further concludes the Georgia Supreme Court did not recognize an independent claim for failure to recall. The only other case Hamby cites in support of her argument is Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Gentry, 254 Ga. App. 888, 564 S.E.2d 733 (2002), but the court in that case never discussed the propriety of a claim for negligent failure to recall. Instead, in the portion of the opinion cited by Hamby, the Georgia Court of Appeals merely held that the trial court's charge to the jury relating to the plaintiffs' claim that the defendant had violated, among other things, the recall provisions of the Federal Safety Act was not improper.

  4. Chrysler Grp., LLC v. Walden

    339 Ga. App. 733 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 18 times
    Affirming awards to parents for wrongful death and for pain and suffering as administrators of child's estate

    The references to the Ford Pinto were general references, not evidence of specific, discrete accidents involving the Ford Pinto. Compare Volkswagen of America v. Gentry , 254 Ga.App. 888, 895โ€“896 (8), 564 S.E.2d 733 (2002). Two of Chrysler's record citations regarding this issue are to plaintiffs' opening statement and two are to plaintiffs' closing argument.

  5. Ford v. Hall-Edwards

    971 So. 2d 854 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

    Moreover, we are aware of no case which, absent a showing of substantial similarity, has allowed reference to "other cases" simply because punitive damages were at issue. See Mack Trucks, Inc., 436 S.E.2d at 640 (admitting as relevant to the issues of notice and punitive damages evidence of frame cracks in other Mack tractor trailer trucks where the record indicated that the other cracks were substantially similar to the frame crack at issue, but not permitting the admission of frame cracks "caused by circumstances wholly different from the one at issue"); see also Stovall, 608 S.E.2d at 247 (stating that evidence of substantially similar incidents is admissible in product liability cases and is relevant to the issues of notice of a defect and punitive damages); see also Volkswagen of Am., Inc., v. Gentry, 254 Ga.App. 888, 564 S.E.2d 733, 741 (2002). In this case, the trial court did not require that plaintiff establish the predicate necessary to permit the admission of similar accident evidence.

  6. Lawyers Title Ins. v. New Freedom

    285 Ga. App. 22 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 26 times
    Concluding that indemnification was required under a CPL even if the lender's own negligence may have partially caused its loss

    And, the trial court was not required to give Lawyers Title's proposed causation instruction, since it provided an incomplete statement of the causation principles applicable in this case. See Volkswagen of America v. Gentry, 254 Ga. App. 888, 896 (9) (a) ( 564 SE2d 733) (2002). For these reasons, the trial court did not err in giving its jury instructions entitled "Causation; Arising Out Of" and "Causation; Plaintiff's Acts."

  7. Palanki v. Vanderbilt Univ

    215 S.W.3d 380 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 35 times
    Affirming remittitur of an award of non-economic damages

    Gaddy v. State, 96 Ga.App. 344, 99 S.E.2d 837, 838 (1957). A later restatement of this rule by the Court of Appeals of Georgia occurred in Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Gentry, 254 Ga.App. 888, 564 S.E.2d 733 (2002). Said the Court:

  8. Keogler v. Krasnoff

    268 Ga. App. 250 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 7 times

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Volkswagen of America v. Gentry, 254 Ga. App. 888, 896 (9) (b) ( 564 SE2d 733) (2002). In Ernst Ernst v. Hochfelder, the United States Supreme Court addressed the question of whether an action can exist under section 10 (b) of the Securities Act of 1934, after which OCGA ยง 10-5-12 (a) (2) is patterned, in the absence of an allegation of intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud on the defendant's part.

  9. Cottrell, Inc. v. Williams

    596 S.E.2d 789 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 2 times

    Id. at 456 (1). See Volkswagen of America v. Gentry, 254 Ga. App. 888, 895 (8) ( 564 SE2d 733) (2002). 2. (a) Cottrell contends that the trial court erred by permitting Driggers to testify, over objection, about scientific matters beyond his expertise.

  10. Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Gentry

    538 U.S. 901 (2003)

    March 7, 2003. Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari dismissed under this Court's Rule 46. Reported below: 254 Ga. App. 888, 564 S.E. 2d 733.