 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nash v. General Motors Corp.4/28/1999
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Leonard Rivkind, Judge.
Appellant, Brian Nash, as the personal representative of the Estate of Maria Nash, appeals a final judgment in favor of the defendants, General Motors, Inc., and Potamkin Chevrolet, Inc., and the denial of his motion for new trial in a products liability action. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.
One Sunday, Maria Nash was driving to church with her two children in the back seat of her 1990 Chevrolet Corsica. Suddenly, a drunk driver crossed the center line and crashed into Ms. Nash's car. Although she was wearing her seatbelt, Ms. Nash's head apparently struck the metal post that separates the windshield from the driver's door. According to the medical examiner, Ms. Nash later died as a result of her head injuries. In addition to the fatal head injury, Ms. Nash also suffered a ruptured spleen and a broken leg. Her two children survived. Ms. Nash's estate filed suit against the manufacturer of her vehicle, General Motors, on the theory that General Motors was strictly liable for a design defect which had been discovered in the seatbelt of the 1990 Chevrolet Corsica.
Following voir dire, the estate challenged a prospective juror for cause. Prospective juror Robles initially indicated that she harbored certain prejudices about personal injury lawsuits. For example, she explained how she was hospitalized in an intensive care unit due to an accident involving a hot water heater; however, despite her belief that there was a cause of action against the manufacturer, she felt compelled not to bring suit. Nevertheless, her more pointed comments indicated that she was unable to follow Florida law which provides for money damages as compensation for someone's wrongful death. Juror Robles was quite clear that she disapproved of awarding money as a means by which to compensate someone for the loss of a loved one. Conversely, in response to the estate's counsel's attempt to determine whether the estate was "starting off with an even playing field or a strike against " as to juror Robles, Robles responded that she was a "fair person." The estate's counsel continued this line of questioning:
"PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: I'm not suggesting that you're not a fair person, and I've asked if any of you have feelings and opinions about these things. Everybody has feelings and opinions. . . . I'm just trying to find out how they would play in terms of hearing a case of this magnitude."
"JUROR ROBLES: I think I could be fair."
The trial court denied the estate's challenge for cause of juror Robles and, as a result, required the estate to expend one of its peremptory strikes.
Before voir dire and again before the trial started, the estate asked the trial court to exclude evidence of the other driver's intoxication. The estate argued that such evidence would be too prejudicial in the jury's consideration of comparative fault. In ruling on this matter, the trial court relied on this court's decision in Stellas v. Alamo Rent-A-Car Inc., 673 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA) (holding that a non-party intentional tortfeasor should appear on the verdict form so as to permit the jury to apportion fault with the negligent tortfeasor), review granted, 683 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 1996), and decision quashed by 702 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1997). Accordingly, the trial court found that the jury "had a right to know all the facts" concerning someone who appears on the verdict form.
At trial, General Motors presented Dr. Raddin as an expert to contest the origin of Ms. Nash's head injury and to oppose
Page 1 2 3 Florida DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|