Berger v. Ford Motor Company , 95 F. App'x 520 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                          UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    RICHARD A. BERGER, individually;         
    BEATRIZ R. BERGER, individually and
    as Parents and Next Friends of the
    Minor Child, Rachel Ann Berger,
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    and
    MICHAEL J. SAMUEL, individually,
    and as Personal Representative of
    the Estate of Alicia F. Samuel, and
    a Personal Representative of the
    Estate of Mark Samuel, and as
    Parent and Next Friend of his
    Minor Child, Andrew M. Samuel,
    Plaintiff,
    v.                        No. 00-2287
    FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Michigan
    Corporation,
    Defendant-Appellee,
    and
    THRIFTY RENT-A-CAR SYSTEMS,
    INCORPORATED, an Oklahoma
    corporation; MARTIN EVERETT
    HAMILTON,
    Defendants,
    MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION,
    Movant.
    
    2                    BERGER v. FORD MOTOR CO.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Paul W. Grimm, Magistrate Judge.
    (CA-96-2155-WMN)
    Argued: February 26, 2004
    Decided: April 28, 2004
    Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and
    HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    ARGUED: Cary Johnson Hansel, III, JOSEPH, GREENWALD &
    LAAKE, P.A., Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellants. Robert Toland,
    II, CAMPBELL, CAMPBELL, EDWARDS & CONROY, Wayne,
    Pennsylvania, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Andrew E. Greenwald, Ste-
    ven M. Pavsner, JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A., Green-
    belt, Maryland, for Appellants. Paul F. Strain, Christina Lee Gaarder,
    VENABLE, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland; William J. Conroy,
    CAMPBELL, CAMPBELL, EDWARDS & CONROY, Wayne,
    Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    This product liability action arises out of a two-vehicle collision
    that resulted in the rollover of a Ford minivan. One passenger in the
    BERGER v. FORD MOTOR CO.                        3
    minivan was killed and several others were severely injured. The
    minivan passengers or their representatives ("the plaintiffs") sued
    Ford Motor Company, the manufacturer of the minivan, based on fail-
    ure to warn of a dangerous condition and other product liability theo-
    ries. A jury trial was held before a magistrate judge; and, at the close
    of the evidence, the judge dismissed the plaintiffs’ failure-to-warn
    claim. The jury returned a verdict for Ford on all remaining claims.
    Certain of the plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their failure-to-warn
    claim and four evidentiary rulings. We affirm.
    I.
    On September 26, 1993, in Eden, Maryland, Richard Berger
    ("Berger") was traveling north on U.S. Route 13 in a rented 1993
    Ford Aerostar minivan. Berger was driving back to New Jersey fol-
    lowing a vacation in Virginia with his wife Beatriz, their daughter
    Rachel, his friends, Michael and Alicia Samuel, and the Samuels’ son,
    Andrew. As Berger approached an intersection, Martin Hamilton,
    driving a Ford Econoline van, failed to yield the right of way and
    entered the northbound roadway. Berger performed an emergency
    avoidance maneuver in an attempt to avoid the accident, steering right
    and then left. However, the Econoline struck the Aerostar, causing it
    to spin counter-clockwise and roll over several times. Berger and his
    wife, Beatriz, were both ejected at least partially from the Aerostar
    and sustained serious and permanent injuries. Alicia Samuel, who was
    pregnant at the time of the accident, was killed and her fetus, though
    delivered alive, died shortly after birth. Michael Samuel, Andrew
    Samuel, and Rachel Berger also sustained injuries.
    On July 12, 1996, the plaintiffs filed an action against Ford as the
    manufacturer of the Aerostar, Thrifty Rent-A-Car as the agency rent-
    ing the Aerostar, and Martin Hamilton as the driver of the Econoline.
    The case went to trial against Ford, with the plaintiffs advancing sev-
    eral product liability theories: defective design, negligent design, and
    defect based on a failure to warn consumers of the minivan’s rollover
    possibility. The district court (magistrate judge) granted Ford’s
    motion in limine to exclude certain testimony from one of the plain-
    tiffs’ experts, Michael A. Kaplan, Ph.D., about accident avoidance
    maneuver testing. See Samuel v. Ford Motor Co. (Samuel I), 
    96 F. Supp. 2d 491
     (D. Md. 2000). At the close of the evidence, Ford
    4                     BERGER v. FORD MOTOR CO.
    moved for judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiffs’ failure-to-
    warn claim, and that motion was also granted. The jury returned a
    verdict for Ford on all remaining claims.
    II.
    Following the jury’s verdict, the plaintiffs moved for a new trial,
    asserting that the district court had erred by: (1) dismissing their
    failure-to-warn claim; (2) admitting the opinion testimony of defense
    expert, Lee Carr, which was not stated to a reasonable degree of engi-
    neering certainty; (3) excluding their expert testimony on accident
    avoidance maneuver testing; (4) admitting evidence of Carr’s rim
    bending tests; (5) admitting defense testimony regarding evidence of
    other accidents, and (6) excluding some of their evidence related to
    their spoliation claim.
    The district court saw no grounds for a new trial and denied the
    motion, explaining that the "issues raised by the Plaintiffs were
    addressed by the Court in great detail before and during the trial."
    Samuel v. Ford Motor Co. (Samuel II), 
    112 F. Supp. 2d 460
    , 463 (D.
    Md. 2000). With respect to the plaintiffs’ failure-to-warn claim, the
    court reiterated its previous determination that by the time Berger
    detected the danger, some sort of serious accident was inevitable and
    that a warning would not have prevented the accident. Therefore, the
    plaintiffs could not establish the causation element of their failure-to-
    warn claim, namely, that the absence or inadequacy of a warning was
    a proximate cause of the injury. See Singleton v. Int’l Harvester Co.,
    
    685 F.2d 112
    , 116-17 (4th Cir. 1981). The bases for the district
    court’s evidentiary rulings are fully set forth in its opinion denying
    the motion for a new trial and in its earlier opinion excluding the
    plaintiffs’ expert testimony on accident avoidance maneuver testing.
    Samuel II, 
    112 F. Supp. 2d 460
    ; Samuel I, 
    96 F. Supp. 2d 491
     (D. Md.
    2000).
    III.
    The Berger plaintiffs appeal. They argue that the district court
    erred in dismissing their failure-to-warn claim and erred in four of the
    five evidentiary rulings listed above. (They abandon their challenge
    to the court’s decision to admit defense testimony with respect to evi-
    BERGER v. FORD MOTOR CO.                         5
    dence of other accidents.) After considering the briefs of parties, their
    oral arguments, and the joint appendix, we affirm on the reasoning of
    the district court.
    AFFIRMED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-2287

Citation Numbers: 95 F. App'x 520

Judges: Niemeyer, Michael, Hamilton

Filed Date: 4/28/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024