 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp.6/1/1999
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Anna C. Forder
Citation:
Opinion Vote: REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Benton, C.J., Price, Covington and Holstein, JJ., and Crow, Sp .J., concur; White, J., Dissents in separate opinion filed. Wolff, J., not participating.
Opinion:
This case comes before this Court for a second time and after a second trial, which, like the first, resulted in a judgment with both actual and punitive damages on plaintiff's products liability claim against Suzuki Motor Corp. (Suzuki). The case arose from a one-vehicle accident in Warren County involving a Suzuki Samurai, a sport utility vehicle (SUV), driven by co-defendant Deborah Dubis. Plaintiff, who was a passenger in the Samurai, was severely injured when it rolled over due to an alleged design defect. The judgment in the first trial was reversed for two reasons: 1) the failure to admit evidence offered by defendant Suzuki that the driver of the vehicle, co-defendant Dubis, had been drinking; and 2) the failure to include in the punitive damages instruction a requirement that plaintiff must have proved her case by "clear and convincing" evidence. Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 936 S.W.2d 104 (Mo. banc 1996) (Suzuki I). Suzuki now contends that, on retrial, the trial court erred in several other respects, including its rulings on two crucial evidentiary issues. In particular, the trial court refused to allow Suzuki to introduce a series of government reports showing that the Samurai had no design defect and refused to allow Suzuki to cross-examine one of plaintiff's expert witnesses concerning the methodology he used to determine that a design defect was present. On the basis of these claims, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.
I.
As a preliminary matter, plaintiff contests this Court's jurisdiction to hear the appeal on the ground that Suzuki's jurisdictional allegations are pretextual. Suzuki bases this Court's jurisdiction on 1) the presence of questions involving the constitutionality of statutes, and 2) the presence of questions of general interest or importance. Given the Dissent's vociferous position on the jurisdictional issue, a more thorough analysis than usual is warranted.
A.
This Court's jurisdiction of constitutional questions is controlled by article V, section 3, of the Missouri Constitution, which states, "The supreme court shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction in all cases involving the validity of . . . a statute or provision of the constitution of this state . . . ." On the face of its jurisdictional statement, as well as under the "Points Relied On" in its brief, Suzuki challenges the constitutional validity of three Missouri statutes: section 537.760, RSMo 1994 (stating the elements of a products liability claim); section 510.263, RSMo 1994 (stating the procedures for punitive damages claims); and section 537.675(2), RSMo 1994 (requiring that 50 percent of all punitive damage awards be paid to the state's tort victim's compensation fund).
Even though a jurisdictional allegation may be proper on its face, this Court will not entertain the appeal if the allegation is pretextual. This proposition is reflected in the repeated holdings of the court of appeals that allegations concerning the constitutional validity of Missouri statutes must be "real and substantial, not merely colorable," AG Processing, Inc. v. South St. Joseph Indus. Sewer Dist., 937 S.W.2d 319, 322
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|