Cummings v. General Motors Corp.

365 F.3d 944 (10th Cir. 2004)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps were involved in a car accident. Husband (H) was driving a 1995 Pontiac Grand Am with his Wife (W) in the front passenger seat. Their children were in the back seat. A three-month-old was in a car seat behind W. H ran a 'partially obscured' stop sign at a T-type intersection and drove off the road, through a ditch, and into a field. W sustained a compression fracture of the third vertebra resulting in paraplegia. P sued D asserting that W sustained such severe injuries as a result of the design of the seat belt and the seat, as well as GM's failure to warn. Multiple discovery disputes erupted over the adequacy of responses to requests for production, expert witness designations, depositions, and electronic discovery. D's motions for protective orders were granted. At trial, D presented evidence that there was no defect in either the seat, the seat belt system, or the warning. D's experts testified that W was most likely reclined at 40-45 degrees at the time of the accident, and or turned to attend to the children in the back seat. P argued that such a conclusion was impossible because there was a rear-facing child safety seat located behind W that prevented her from reclining her seat. D offered evidence that the child seat was actually installed in a forward-facing direction at the time of the accident, thus allowing the front passenger seat to recline. At the close of all the evidence, out of the presence and hearing of the jury, both parties moved for judgment as a matter of law. P argued that foreseeable misuse is not a defense. The court denied both motions. The jury found for D. P failed to make any motions following the return of the verdict. P filed a timely appeal, asserting that (1) they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law with regard to liability, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in its rulings on various discovery motions. One month after the verdict, P discovered six videos of child safety seat acceleration tests conducted by D and produced by D in an unrelated trial. The videos show tests by GM involving child-sized dummies in forward-facing child car seats placed in the back seat. In the videos, the children are thrown from the car seat during various accident simulations. This demonstrates that it was impossible for W to have her seat fully reclined at the time of the accident, as their child would have been injured had the child been in a forward-facing child restraint. P waited seven months to file a motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).