Tracy Price v. Takata Corp., et al

Filing 511158568

Tracy Price v. Takata Corp., et al

Doc. 511158568

Case: 09-10487

Document: 00511158568

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/29/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
June 29, 2010 N o . 09-10487 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

T R A C Y PRICE, P la in t if f ­ A p p e lla n t , v. T A K A T A CORP., a Japanese Corporation; TK HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware C o r p o r a t io n ; and as Successor-in-Interest to TAKATA, INC., a Delaware C o r p o r a t io n ; TK HOLDINGS I, LLC, a Delaware Corporation; TAKATA R E S T R A I N T SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; TAKATA SEAT B E L T S , INC., a Delaware Corporation; TAKATA USA CORP., a Delaware C o r p o r a t io n ; HONDA MOTOR COMPANY LTD, a Japanese Corporation; H O N D A RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD, a Japanese C o r p o r a t io n ; AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware C o r p o r a t io n ; HONDA OF AMERICA MANUFACTURING, INC., a Delaware C o r p o r a tio n , D e fe n d a n t s ­ A p p e lle e s .

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Texas U S D C No. 2:08-CV-151

B e fo r e JOLLY, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:*

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-10487

Document: 00511158568

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/29/2010

No. 09-10487 A jury returned a verdict for defendants Honda Motor Company Ltd. (H o n d a ) and Takata Corp. (Takata) in a case arising from the injuries Tracy P r ic e sustained in a car accident. Price appeals with challenges to the district c o u r t's admission of evidence of her drug abuse. For the following reasons, we a ffir m . I T h is case arises from a tragic, one-car accident that rendered Price p a r a p le g ic . Price brought suit against Honda, the manufacturer of her car, and T a k a t a , the manufacturer of the seatbelt in her car. She alleged that Honda and T a k a t a were liable for her injuries because the seatbelt in her car was defective. She contended that the seatbelt buckle was subject to partial engagement, such t h a t it seemed to latch when it actually did not latch. The case proceeded to trial o n her tort claims. A t trial, to show that Price was at fault for the car accident, Honda and T a k a t a introduced testimony that Price had a history of methamphetamine use a n d that after the accident she was assessed a fine for drug paraphernalia found in her car. They also introduced expert testimony that if Price had ceased her u s e of methamphetamine two days before the accident, as she asserted, she w o u ld have been experiencing withdrawal symptoms, including fatigue. The ju r y returned a verdict for Honda and Takata, finding that Price was not w e a r in g her seatbelt at the time of the accident. Price appeals and argues that the district court abused its discretion in a d m it t in g the evidence of her methamphetamine use. She argues that the e v id e n c e of her drug use is irrelevant since a jury is not allowed to consider a p la in t iff's fault in a crashworthiness case. She also argues that even if the e v id e n c e is marginally relevant, the district court should have excluded it since t h e evidence's probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of u n fa ir prejudice. 2

Case: 09-10487

Document: 00511158568

Page: 3

Date Filed: 06/29/2010

No. 09-10487

II W e review a district court's decision to admit or exclude evidence for abuse o f discretion.1 "A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is based on an e r r o n e o u s view of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence." 2 " I f we find that an abuse of discretion has occurred, we then apply the harmless e r r o r doctrine."3 Thus, we will affirm the evidentiary ruling "unless the district c o u r t abused its discretion and a substantial right of the complaining party was a ffe c t e d ."4 "An error does not affect substantial rights if the court is sure, after r e v ie w in g the entire record, that the error did not influence the jury or had but a very slight effect on its verdict." 5 O n appeal, Price did not address whether the introduction of evidence of h e r drug use was harmful. "As a general rule, a party waives any argument that it fails to brief on appeal."6 Price makes no arguments in her brief as to how the a lle g e d ly erroneous evidentiary rulings affected the jury finding that she was not w e a r in g her seatbelt. She points to no moment in which Honda or Takata called u p o n the jury to infer that her drug use affected her ability or likelihood to b u c k l e her seatbelt or suggested that her drug use diminished her right to r e c o v e r . Neither does she cite any instances in the record in which Honda or
1

Paz v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc., 555 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2009). Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2

Price v. Rosiek Constr. Co., 509 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
4

3

Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Id. at 707-08 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

5

United States v. Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325, 346 (5th Cir. 2009), pet. for cert. filed, Nos. 09-1422, 09-11039 (May 24, 2010); No. 09-11067 (May 25, 2010) .

6

3

Case: 09-10487

Document: 00511158568

Page: 4

Date Filed: 06/29/2010

No. 09-10487 T a k a t a attacked the credibility of her testimony because of her drug use. Accordingly, because her brief does not adequately discuss how the evidence of d r u g abuse affected the jury verdict, Price has waived any contention that this e r r o r was harmful. E v e n if we were to assume that Price did not waive this issue, any error in admitting the evidence was harmless. A review of the entire record

d e m o n s t r a t e s that the evidence of Price's drug use had very slight, if any, effect o n the jury's finding that the plaintiff was not wearing her seatbelt. The

q u e s t io n of whether Price was wearing her seatbelt turned on the testimony of t h r e e Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) and Price. The EMTs, who each a r r iv e d at the scene of the accident, testified that Price informed them that she h a d not engaged her seatbelt. Price's testimony did not directly refute these s t a t e m e n t s . She testified that she always wears her seatbelt, but that she could n o t remember what she told the EMTs. The evidence of Price's drug use was p r o ffe r e d not to discredit this testimony, but rather to show that she caused the o n e -c a r accident. Further, the expert witness did not testify as to whether her d r u g withdrawal affected her seatbelt use, and Honda and Takata made no a r g u m e n t s that her drug use had any role in her failure to wear a seatbelt. Thus, even if the evidence was improperly admitted, it did not alter the jury's v e r d ic t . * * *

A c c o r d in g ly , we AFFIRM the district court's judgment.

4