ARTICLE ID 29082
- AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS LIABILITY - DEFENDANT HONDA MANUFACTURES ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE ________ HONDA CIVIC COUPE - ALLEGED UNCRASHWORTHINESS IN SIDE-IMPACT COLLISIONS - WRONGFUL DEATH OF 39-YEAR-OLD PULMONOLOGIST - DECEDENT SURVIVED BY WIFE AND MINOR CHILD - WIFE WAS PREGNANT AT THE TIME OF DECEDENT'S DEATH.
Maricopa County, Arizona
This products liability action arose out of a two-vehicle,
intersection collision involving a ________ Honda Civic Coupe and a
________ Lexus 250ES. The male decedent, a 39-year-old married
physician, was operating the Honda when his vehicle was struck on
the drivers side by the Lexus, whose operator failed to heed the
red light controlling that vehicles direction of travel. The
decedent suffered fatal injuries in the accident as an alleged
result of the unsafe design of the Honda. The plaintiffs
contended that the Honda was uncrashworthy specifically relating
to side-impact strength. The alleged unsafe design allegedly
caused the decedent to sustain the fatal injuries suffered.
The subject accident occurred on June 3, ________, at an intersection
in Scottsdale, Arizona. The decedent was the driver of a ________
Honda Civic Coupe and was traveling westbound through the
intersection of Sweetwater Boulevard and Scottsdale Road, when
the driver of a southbound Lexus ran a red light and struck the
Honda in the drivers side front fender and door. The Scottsdale
Police Department calculated an impact speed of 46 M.P.H. by the
Lexus and 22 M.P.H. by the Honda. The impact sent both vehicles
spinning through the intersection and into a stationary delivery
van.
The decedent was fatally injured in the accident. He sustained
multiple injuries, including fractures to his left tibia, fibula
and femur, as well as a fractured pelvis. The decedent
additionally sustained a severely torn aorta and died in surgery
the day after the accident. The decedent, a pulmonologist, was p 7 3
survived by his wife and son, born five months following his
death. The plaintiffs damages included medical expenses, funeral
expenses, lost future income and services, loss of love and
affection, and past and future mental suffering.
The plaintiffs contended that the ________ Honda Civic Coupe was
uncrashworthy in side-impact collisions. The plaintiffs claimed
that the Civics door beam was situated too high and was
insufficiently strong to prevent occupant compartment intrusion
by the impacting Lexus. Further, the plaintiffs alleged that the
Civic required two door beams and various body reinforcements to
provide greater rigidity in side-impact accidents. The court
permitted the plaintiffs to introduce evidence that some later
model automobiles have two beams in each door and other
structures to enhance side-impact performance.
Much of the plaintiffs liability case focused on a recent
amendment to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS)
imposing dynamic crash test performance requirements. Under the
FMVSS ________ dynamic test standard, a ________-pound moving deformable
barrier is crashed into a test vehicle at a 27-degree angle to
simulate a 30 M.P.H. vehicle striking a 15 mph vehicle in a 90-
degree intersection accident. The ________ model year was the first
of a four phase-in period for this new federal safety standard.
For model year ________, manufacturers were required to conform 10
percent of the fleets to the new standard. The ________ Civic Coupe
was part of the fifth generation Honda Civic line developed
between ________ and ________ and, therefore, it was not subject to the
new standard.
The defendant Honda contended that the ________ Honda Civic was a
safe and defect-free vehicle with state-of-the-art side impact
crashworthiness. Honda maintained that the subject accident was
extremely severe and that none of the alternative designs
promoted by plaintiffs experts would have prevented the
decedents fatal injuries.
Furthermore, Honda introduced statistical accident data to
demonstrate that the ________ Civic provided excellent real-world,
side-impact protection when compared to other vehicles, including
later model Honda Civics and various newer and larger vehicles
singled out by the plaintiffs expert witnesses.
Counsel for plaintiff did not suggest a specific amount of
damages to the jury in his closing argument, as is permitted in
California. He did, however, point out the expert economists
evaluation of the plaintiffs economic loss, totaling
approximately $10 million.
The jury found for the defendant.
5 ways to win with JVRA
JVRA gives you jurisdiction-specific, year-round insight into the strategies, arguments and tactics that win. Successful attorneys come to the table prepared and use JVRA to:
- Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
- Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
- Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
- Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
- Defeat or support post-trial motions through past case histories.
Try JVRA for a day or a month, or sign up for our deluxe Litigation Support Plan and put the intelligence of JVRA to work for all of your clients. See our subscription plans.