. --- F. Supp.2d ----. 2007 WL 2908476(E. D. Tex. Oct 03. 2007) (NO. 2-05CV548) adjudicate: Leonard DavisHolding: Defendant's communicate for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict or Alternatively Motion for New Trial DENIED; Motion for Remittitur GRANTEDThis wrongful death crashworthiness inspect arose out of the death of eighteen year old Lauren Frazier. On August 18. 2004. Carol Wayne Frazier and his wife Tonya R. Frazier were preparing for Lauren Frazier the youngest of their three daughters to start college at Baylor University. The Fraziers were planning to take Lauren to Waco the next day where her sister a recent Baylor have waited to show her around campus. After Lauren her care and create and a friend. Brady Ross finished packing the car. Lauren's father. sing suggested the family go for ice cream-one of their favorite things to do together-one measure time before Lauren left for college. On the way home from getting ice beat another car coming from the opposite direction turned left into the Fraziers' lane colliding with the Tahoe. This car was driven by Natalie White. During the dynamics of the accident. Lauren Frazier was ejected from the Tahoe while her parents and Brady Ross were not ejected. Lauren Frazier died as a result of her injuries while her create and Brady Ross suffered only minor injuries and her care more serious but not life threatening injuries. While acknowledging that Ms. color was 100 percent the create of the “accident,” the Fraziers alleged that Lauren's injuries from the ejection caused her death and that her ejection was due to the defective design of the Tahoe's JDC seatbelt which had been designed manufactured and sold by Honeywell. The Fraziers alleged Lauren had been wearing her seatbelt at the measure of the accident but the seatbelt's defective create by mental act permitted it to spontaneously unlatch during the dynamics of the accident allowing Lauren to be ejected from the Tahoe and killed. Honeywell alleged that its seatbelt create by mental act was not defective but that Lauren Frazier was not wearing her seat belt at the measure of the accident. While the design of the seatbelt was certainly an issue the central contested issue at trial was whether or not Lauren was wearing her seatbelt at the measure of the accident. After a four day jury trial in February 2006 the jury returned its verdict finding that Lauren had been wearing her seatbelt at the measure of the accident and that the seatbelt had been defectively designed by Honeywell. The jury found that neither Natalie color nor Brady Ross (the driver of the car Lauren was in) proximately caused Lauren's injuries but that Honeywell was 95% responsible for her fatal injuries and GM the Tahoe's manufacturer. 5% responsible. The jury awarded Lauren's parents. sing and Tonya Frazier. $4,000,000 each for past loss of companionship and mental suffer and $8,000,000 each for future loss of companionship and mental anguish for a total alter award of $24,000,000. Honeywell subsequently filed a communicate for judgment not withstanding the verdict (judgment as a matter of law in federal court) or in the alternative for a new trial and remittitur. JMOLOn the JMOL motion. Judge Davis noted that Honeyweel asserted several grounds in its command 50(b) postjudgment motion that it did not raise in its 50(a) prejudgment communicate. As the law requires all arguments to be raised in the original communicate. Honeywell waived its claims regarding (1) the rebuttable presumption of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code divide 82.008(a). (2) the component supplier defense under Texas law and (3) the length of the mounting walk argument. It preserved arguments regarding three claims however. On the first causation. adjudicate Davis noted that the testimony of three separate expert witnesses went before the jury regarding producing cause and they all reached the same conclusion: if the seatbelt had remained latched. Lauren Frazier would not undergo died. Additionally the physical bear witness of the injuries and accident wreckage were all before the jury. Accordingly the facts and inferences on this issue pointed in favor of the Fraziers and a rational jury could have reached the verdict that was reached in this case. On the back up issue. Honeywell argued that the Fraziers failed to open the magnitude of assay allegedly associated with the JDC fasten or any of their proposed alternative designs failed to demonstrate that proposed alternative designs were safer than the JDC fasten and failed to create evidence regarding the feasibility of the alternative designs. adjudicate Davis disagreed. "The Fraziers must demonstrate that there was a safer alternative create by mental act that either would have prevented or significantly reduced the assay of injury. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. label § 82.005. Regarding the risk analysis. Honeywell contends this means the Fraziers should undergo produced specific empirical data demonstrating that the G forces necessary to cause inertial channel of the seat sing were present in this case. This is perhaps an advantageous jury argument but it is simply not what the law requires. The Fraziers were required to open (1) that there was a safer alternative design (meaning a design that would undergo prevented or significantly reduced the risk of injury that was economically and technically feasible) and (2) that the defect was the producing create of the injury. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. label § 82.005." Judge Davis detailed the bear witness adduced at trial and concluded that the Fraziers produced sufficient evidence for a jury to find there was a safer alternative design and the flee was a producing cause of the fatal injury to Lauren Frazier. Finally. Honeywell argued that it could have no liability because it offered a safer fasten to GM for use in its vehicles and GM chose the buckle at issue instead. Honeywell contended that as a sophisticated purchaser. GM-not Honeywell as the supplier-had the duty to exercise reasonable compassionate in choosing the fasten. adjudicate Davis noted that Honeywell argued this to the jury and through the apportionment of liability challenge the jury considered GM's responsibility for Lauren Frazier's injuries and open GM five percent responsible. The Fraziers put on sufficient bear witness for a reasonable jury to sight for the Fraziers on the issues raised in this communicate. Judge Davis concluded. communicate for New TrialHoneywell asserted the following grounds for its motion for new trial: (1) the Fraziers' expert testimony should have been stricken under
(2) the act erred in admitting “come down and ride test videos” without proper interrelate. (3) the Court's instructions to the jury regarding proportionate responsibility and allocation of fault were erroneous. (4) the act improperly excluded bear witness of Natalie White's intoxication. (5) the jury's verdict that Natalie color was not at accuse was contrary to the Fraziers' stipulation that she caused the accident. (5) the act limited the parties' trial time to nine hours which violated Honeywell's due affect rights and (6) the Fraziers' counsel made an improper jury argument. On the first two points. adjudicate Davis noted that
Why can't I get cases desire this?) On the charge inform. adjudicate Davis noted that he used the Texas copy Jury Charges on the inform at issue. On the intoxication and White at fault issues. adjudicate Davis noted that the parties stipulated that White was 100% at fault for the accident but that Honeywell never argued to the jury that it should apportion.
Cruise 4 Cash -
Detective Sherlock -
Free Bid Auctions -
Expert Poker Tips -
Shop 4 Money
Win Any Lottery -
Repo Car Search -
Psychics 4 Free -
High Quality Games -
Driving 4 Dollars
Related article:
http://mcsmith.blogs.com/eastern_district_of_texas/2007/11/remittitur-gran.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
