 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kava v. American Honda Motor Co.6/14/2002
on the negligence cause of action. The jury's foreperson sent a note to the court stating, "We have debated and voted on question #4 since yesterday afternoon. We have not been able to move beyond an 8-3 vote on this question. Please advise." Question four stated "Was Honda negligent? (Answer yes or no)." In attempting to formulate a response to the jury note, the trial court suggested that it should declare a mistrial as to the negligence cause of action and direct the jury to answer the remainder of the special verdict as to the products liability cause of action. The estate did not believe that a mistrial was necessary on this negligence claim but agreed with the trial court's suggestion to instruct the jury to answer the remaining special verdict questions. Honda objected and moved for a mistrial on all points.
The court denied Honda's motion for a mistrial on the entire case but declared a mistrial on the negligence claim, instructing the jury to skip questions four and five (which dealt with negligence) and to continue answering the verdict form with question six. The jury reached a verdict as to the remaining issues, which dealt with the estate's product liabilities theory. It found that the three-wheel ATV was a defective product and that it was a legal cause of Gologergen's death. The jury also found that Aaron, Eleanor, Stephanie, and Brianne Gologergen were legal dependents of Abner Gologergen. But it awarded zero damages to Aaron and Eleanor, and $25,000 each to Stephanie and Brianne only for the loss of consortium. Further, despite finding that Patsy Kava was Abner Gologergen's biological daughter, the jury awarded her zero damages. It also found that Abner Gologergen was negligent and that his negligence was fifty percent of the cause of his death. Finally, the jury found that Honda had not engaged in outrageous conduct; this finding precluded an award of punitive damages.
After the jury's verdict was read into the record, the estate's counsel asked that the jury be polled, but did not challenge the verdict when the poll was completed. The court then dismissed the jury. The estate later moved for a new trial on all issues. The superior court denied the estate's motion. The estate appeals.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
We review a trial court's decision to admit evidence for an abuse of discretion. The question of whether to grant or refuse a new trial "rests in the sound discretion of the trial court." In reviewing an order denying a new trial, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard is a question of law that we review de novo.
B. The Comparative Risk Evidence Was Admissible.
The estate asserts that the trial court erroneously allowed Honda to introduce evidence comparing the risks of riding three-wheel ATVs to the risks of operating other vehicles like snowmachines and motorcycles - so-called comparative risk evidence. The estate points out that the trial court had issued a protective order excluding the comparative risk evidence unless it was used to impeach certain Consumer Product Safety Commission reports. The estate argues that the evidence is irrelevant and that its admission amounted to reversible error. We disagree. The comparative risk evidence the estate complains of was relevant and admissible for two reasons.
First, the estate made the evidence relevant when it introduced evidence of ATV-related emergency room admissions. The estate first mentioned the emergency room statistics in its opening statement. The estate's trial counsel stated in opening that " y 1984, over 100,000 people h
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.
|
|