 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kava v. American Honda Motor Co.6/14/2002
No. 5582
I. INTRODUCTION
Patsy Kava, as the personal representative of the estate of Abner Gologergen, appeals from a jury verdict in a wrongful death defective products action resulting from a three-wheel ATV accident. The estate claims that the superior court erred in allowing Honda to introduce comparative risk evidence, in not allowing the estate to inform the jury of an indemnity agreement between two co-defendants, and in not granting a motion for a new trial. Because the superior court correctly ruled that the comparative risk evidence was admissible and did not abuse its discretion in excluding the indemnity agreement, we affirm in part. But because the court incorrectly determined the effect of its sua sponte declaration of a mistrial on the negligence cause of action and applied the wrong standard in denying the estate's motion for a new trial, we reverse in part.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Abner Gologergen was driving a Honda three-wheel ATV to the site of a beached whale near Savoonga when he lost control, drove over a rocky embankment, and suffered fatal head injuries. Gologergen's estate filed a wrongful death action against American Honda Motor Company (Honda) and Sitnasuak Native Corporation, alleging a defective product design and negligence.
The estate claimed five dependents: Patsy Kava, an estranged biological daughter, Aaron and Eleanor Gologergen, an adult nephew and his wife, and Stephanie and Brianne Gologergen, Aaron and Eleanor's minor daughters.
All parties stipulated that Sitnasuak had no independent liability for any negligence because it was simply a conduit for Honda's product. Honda agreed to indemnify Sitnasuak against any judgment, and Sitnasuak consented to representation by Honda.
Prior to trial, the estate moved to exclude any "evidence comparing, or designed to compare, the risks of engaging in the activity of riding ATVs or 3-wheel ATVs, and the risk of engaging in other activities such as riding snowmachines, trail bikes or bicycles." The superior court granted the motion but made one exception:
if evidence of certain Consumer Product Safety Council reports and findings presented by the plaintiff in his case in chief. In that event, the risk analysis prepared by Dr. Verhalen may be admitted as rebuttal, to impeach the methodology and statistical analysis performed.
Also prior to trial, the estate offered a proposed instruction informing the jury of the indemnity agreement between Honda and Sitnasuak. Honda objected to the instruction at the start of the trial, and the superior court excluded it.
In opening argument, the estate's attorney recited statistics compiled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission regarding emergency room admissions and deaths attributed to ATVs - the statistical studies that the superior court referred to in its pretrial order excluding comparative risk evidence. Honda objected to the estate's use of those statistics as being prejudicial and out of context. The superior court overruled the objection.
In its case in chief, again over Honda's objection, the estate presented evidence of the CPSC studies. Then, over the estate's objection, the trial court allowed Honda to introduce certain comparative risk evidence that otherwise would have been excluded under its pretrial order. Later, again over the estate's objections, the court allowed Honda to introduce several exhibits that illustrated the comparative risks between ATVs and other classes of vehicles, including snowmobiles, minibikes, and trailbikes.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury began deliberating but deadlocked
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|