 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McCathern v. Toyota Motor Corp.4/28/1999
resented evidence regarding the correlation between the height of a vehicle's center of gravity and its rollover resistance. Tamny testified that, in his opinion, the 1994 4Runner was unreasonably dangerous because tire friction forces generated by hard steering could--by themselves--cause the vehicle to roll over instead of sliding to a stop. Tamny also testified that the design of the 1996 4Runner--which was lighter, had a wider track width, and a lower center of gravity than the 1994 4Runner--achieved a substantially increased degree of stability. Toyota conceded that the design changes made in the 1996 model could have been incorporated into the design of the 1994 4Runner.
Plaintiff also presented evidence that Toyota marketed the 1994 4Runner for highway driving and commuting, as well as for off-road use. Specifically, plaintiff submitted examples of Toyota's print and television advertising of the 1994 4Runner, which contained specific representations of 4Runners engaged in sharp steering maneuvers.
At the close of plaintiff's case, Toyota moved for a directed verdict, asserting that plaintiff had failed to prove her negligence claim and had failed to prove a design defect and causation in her strict liability claim. The court granted a directed verdict for Toyota on the negligence claim, rejected the second argument, and deferred ruling on the third. At the close of all evidence, Toyota unsuccessfully renewed its motion for a directed verdict, arguing again that plaintiff had failed to prove design defect and causation. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff on the strict liability claim, concluding that the design of the 1994 4Runner was defective, and awarded plaintiff $5,400,000 in economic damages and $2,250,000 in non-economic damages. Toyota subsequently objected to the proposed money judgment on the ground that ORS 18.560 "capped" plaintiff's non-economic damages at $500,000. The trial court denied that objection and entered a judgment for plaintiff for $7,645,000, plus interest and costs.
Toyota timely filed a motion for JNOV, or, in the alternative, a new trial. In support of its motion for JNOV, Toyota reiterated its arguments that plaintiff failed to prove design defect--and particularly that the design of the 1996 4Runner represented a safer reasonable alternative design--or that the design of the 1994 4Runner caused her injuries. In support of its motion for a new trial, Toyota pointed, inter alia, to newly discovered evidence of two rollovers involving 1996-model 4Runners. The trial court did not rule on Toyota's motion, and it was denied by operation of law. ORCP 63 D.
On appeal, Toyota raises four assignments of error. First, Toyota argues that the trial court erred in denying Toyota's motions for directed verdict and JNOV because plaintiff's evidence of product defect was insufficient to support the verdict. Second, Toyota argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying its motion for a new trial because Toyota's "newly discovered evidence" of the two rollovers involving 1996-model 4Runners would so materially undermine plaintiff's theory that the 1996 4Runner represented a safer practicable alternative design as to change the result if a new trial were granted. Third, Toyota argues that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing plaintiff to admit allegedly irrelevant and unfounded expert testimony regarding 15 "similar" rollover accidents, some of which, Toyota contends, was inadmissible hearsay. Fourth, Toyota argues that the trial court erred by not limiting plaintiff's non-economic damages to $500,000, as required by ORS 18.560(1).
Toyota acknowledges that, for purposes of our review, its fourth assignment
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Oregon Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|