Rentas v. Tucker et al
Filing
87
ORDER granting 51 Motion in limine; granting 52 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting 53 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; taking 50 Motion in limine under advisement. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr on 7/5/2011. (TS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
GLENDA RENTAS,
Plaintiff,
-vs-
Case No. 3:10-cv-369-J-37JBT
BETTY ANN TUCKER and
WILLIAMSON DISTRIBUTORS, INC.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff GLENDA RENTAS’ (“Mrs. Rentas”)
Motion to Exclude Testimony of John V. Marraccini, M.D. (Doc. No. 50), Motion to Exclude
Testimony of Defense Expert, Donald Fournier (Doc. No. 51), Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment as to Fabre Defendants, Affirmative Defenses 7, 10, 11, and 12 (Doc. No. 52) and as to
Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses 8 and 9 (Doc. No. 53), filed on March 1, 2011. Defendants filed
their responses (Doc. Nos. 54, 55, 56, and 57) on March 15, 2011. The Court, having considered
Mrs. Rentas’ motions and Defendants’ responses, and being otherwise fully advised, finds that Mrs.
Rentas’ Motion to Exclude Testimony of Donald Fournier, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
as to Fabre Defendants, Affirmative Defenses 7, 10, 11, and 12, and Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment as to Affirmative Defenses 8 and 9 are due to be GRANTED. Additionally, the Court
takes Mrs. Rentas’ Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Marraccini under advisement to be ruled on
at the final pretrial conference.
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves a tragic traffic crash. Julio Rentas, Jr. (“the deceased”) was driving a
tandem tractor trailer for his employer, Central Transport, Inc., traveling Southbound on Interstate
(“I”) 95 in Flagler County, Florida, when he collided into the rear of Defendant Betty Ann Tucker=s
(“Mrs. Tucker”) tractor trailer, owned by Defendant Williamson Distributors, Inc. (“Williamson”).
The collision occurred at approximately 4:00 a.m. on December 22, 2009. At the time of the crash,
Mrs. Tucker was entering the interstate after taking a stop to inspect the vehicle due to warning
lights that had illuminated on the dash of her truck and was in the right lane allegedly traveling less
than the posted minimum speed.
Mrs. Rentas, the personal representative of the Estate of Rentas, filed her complaint (Doc.
No. 1) on April 29, 2010 against Mrs. Tucker and Williamson (collectively “Defendants”), alleging
counts of negligence against both Defendants. In their amended answers and affirmative defenses
(Doc. Nos. 30 and 31), filed on October 21, 2010, Defendants asserted the following relevant
affirmative defenses:
7. Pursuant to Nash v. Wells Fargo Guard Services, Inc., 678
So.[]2d 1262 (Fla. 1996), the Defendant reserves the right to assert
the negligence of non-parties as an affirmative defense under Fabre v.
Marin, 623 So.[]2d 1182[] (Fla. 1993), if any such non-parties are
specifically identified during the course of discovery.
8. Any loss or damages which were sustained by the Plaintiff
were caused, in whole or in part, by the deceased Rentas’ own failure
to confirm that the pneumatic locking tabs of the fifth wheel assembly
were fully engaged.
9. Any loss or damages which were sustained by the Plaintiff
were caused, in whole or in part, by the deceased Rentas’ employer
Central Transport, Inc.’s failure to confirm that the pneumatic locking
tabs of the fifth wheel assembly were fully engaged.
2
10. Any loss or damages which were sustained by the
Plaintiff were caused, in whole or in part, by the deceased Rentas’
employer Central Transport, Inc.’s failure to properly maintain the
fifth wheel assembly of the tractor trailer operated by Rentas.
11. Any loss or damages which were sustained by the
Plaintiff were caused by the improper design of the fifth wheel
assembly by SAF-HOLLAND.
12. Any loss or damages which were sustained by the
Plaintiff were caused by the negligent manufacture of the fifth wheel
assembly by SAF-HOLLAND USA, Inc. or HOLLAND USA, Inc.[.]
(Doc. Nos. 30 and 31 at 6-7) (emphasis added).
II.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mrs. Rentas moves for summary judgment on Mrs. Tucker’s and Williamson’s
above-mentioned affirmative defenses.
Mrs. Rentas asserts that discovery is complete and
Defendants have developed no evidence to support its affirmative defenses. Mrs. Rentas argues
that Defendants failed to prove the existence of a duty of any proposed Fabre defendant, the breach
of said duty, and causation due to said breach, as they failed to introduce any evidence in their
admissions, deposition testimony, affidavits, or answers to interrogatories of improper design,
negligent manufacturing, or improper maintenance. (Doc. No. 52 at 5.) Similarly, Mrs. Rentas
contends that Defendants failed to meet their burden as to the affirmative defenses eight (8) and nine
(9) by not presenting any evidence of negligence of the deceased or Central Transport. (Doc. No.
53 at 5.)
In response, Defendants assert that Mr. Fournier, their expert witness, constructed an
exemplar of the Rentas/Central Transport fifth wheel tractor/trailer hitch to assist him in
understanding and demonstrating the unusual failure of the trailer hitch as evidence of a flaw or
negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. (Doc. No. 54 at 5; Doc. No. 55 at 4.)
3
According to Defendants, they have offered sufficient evidence showing that the fifth wheel was the
instrument that caused the injury and that it was in the sole control of the deceased, Central
Transport, Inc., SAF-HOLLAND, or SAF-HOLLAND USA, Inc. or HOLLAND USA, Inc..
Furthermore, they allege that the expert witness concluded that the failure of the fifth wheel would
not have happened in the ordinary course of events had there been proper care that includes visual
inspections. (Doc. No. 55 at 7.)
In her reply (Doc. No. 75), Mrs. Rentas notes that Mr. Fournier’s deposition testimony does
nothing to clarify the basis for naming the Fabre defendants. (Id. at 2.) In particular, Mr. Fournier
concludes that he does not know whether the fifth wheel assembly failed due to a design defect, a
maintenance defect, or some other malfunction. (Id. at 3.) As to the alleged maintenance defect,
Mr. Fournier testified that he had no maintenance records on the subject fifth wheel and did not
know anything about how it was maintained. (Id.) Mrs. Rentas concludes that in light of this
testimony, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to the causation of the fifth wheel assembly
failure for the jury’s consideration.
Concurrently with her motions for partial summary judgment, Mrs. Rentas moves the Court
to exclude Mr. Fournier’s testimony on the ground that it fails the Daubert admissibility standard.
(See Doc. No. 51.) Since the Court’s ruling on admissibility of Mr. Fournier’s testimony on the
subject of causation of the fifth wheel assembly failure will dispose of most, if not all, Plaintiff’s
issues in the pending motions for partial summary judgment, the Court will first consider whether
Mr. Fournier’s testimony meets the Daubert standard.
III.
Mrs. Rentas’ Motion to Exclude Mr. Fournier’s Testimony
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 sets out the following requirements for expert testimony:
4
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the
trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue,
a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,
training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or
otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data,
(2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods,
and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to
the facts of the case.
Fed. R. Evid. 702.
Under this rule of evidence and the Supreme Court decision governing its application,
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), district courts must act as
“gatekeepers,” admitting expert testimony only if it is both reliable and relevant, to prevent
speculative and unreliable testimony from reaching the jury. Rink v. Cheminova, Inc., 400 F.3d
1286, 1291 (11th Cir. 2005). In playing this role, the district court must consider whether (1) the
expert is qualified to testify competently regarding the matters he intends to address; (2) the
methodology by which the expert reaches his conclusions is sufficiently reliable as determined by
the sort of inquiry mandated in Daubert; and (3) the testimony assists the trier of fact, through the
application of scientific, technical, or specialized expertise, to understand the evidence or to
determine a fact in issue. City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chems., Inc., 158 F.3d 548, 562-63 (11th
Cir. 1998) (footnote omitted). The party offering the expert bears the burden of satisfying each of
the three elements by a preponderance of the evidence. Rink, 400 F.3d at 1292.
Regarding the second criterion, “[t]o assess the reliability of an expert opinion, the court
considers a number of factors, including those listed by the Supreme Court in Daubert:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
whether the expert’s theory can be and has been tested;
whether the theory has been subject to peer review and publication;
the known or potential rate of error of the particular scientific technique; and
whether the technique is generally accepted in the scientific community.”
5
United States v. Abreu, 406 F.3d 1304, 1306-07 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Frazier,
387 F.3d 1244, 1262 (11th Cir. 2004)). However, these listed factors “are only illustrative and may
not all apply in every case.” Id. at 1307. In any event, “[t]he district court has wide latitude in
deciding how to determine reliability.” Id.
The Court finds that Mr. Fournier’s testimony regarding the cause of failure of the fifth
wheel assembly fails under at least two prongs. First, Mr. Fournier is not qualified to render
opinions regarding the fifth wheel manufacturing, design, or maintenance. In his deposition
testimony, Mr. Fournier admitted that he has no background in fifth wheel manufacturing or design,
that he has never evaluated the design of a fifth wheel assembly, that he has not had any training or
experience in maintaining a fifth wheel assembly, never been to a plant where fifth wheels are
manufactured, and that he never had any hands-on experience in designing a fifth wheel. (Fournier
Dep. 17:25-18:25.) Given this, the Court determines that Mr. Fournier is not qualified to testify on
the issue of whether the fifth wheel’s failure was due to the alleged negligent manufacturing, design,
or maintenance.
Furthermore, even if the Court were to conclude that Mr. Fournier is qualified to testify on
this subject, and his testimony to be reliable, the Court is convinced that Mr. Fournier’s expert
testimony on this issue would not in any way be helpful to the jury with regard to whether the failure
of the fifth wheel assembly was due to the negligence of the manufacturer, the designer, Central
Transport, or the deceased. Indeed, Mr. Fournier admitted that he is unable to narrow down why
the fifth wheel assembly failed, whether because of negligent manufacturing, design, or
maintenance, or because of the collision itself. (Fournier Dep. 96:2-15 (saying “[w]ith regard to
the exact failure mechanism or mechanisms, I have not made that determination.”) Mr. Fournier’s
6
testimony, at best, contemplates many possible ways, some under a different set of circumstances
from the instant case, in which a fifth wheel assembly could fail, but does not help the trier of fact in
determining whether any of the Fabre defendants’ negligence caused the failure of the fifth wheel
assembly.
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Mrs. Rentas’ Motion to Exclude Mr.
Fournier’s Testimony on this limited issue. Defendants may not present any of Mr. Fournier’s
testimony to show that the cause of the fifth wheel’s failure was due to the alleged negligent
manufacturing, design, or maintenance.
IV.
Mrs. Rentas’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
as to Affirmative Defenses 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12
A. Summary Judgment Standard
Although this is a diversity action governed by Florida substantive law, federal law
determines whether summary judgment is appropriate. See Hammer v. Slater, 20 F.3d 1137, 1140
(11th Cir. 1994); Kroon v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 628 F.2d 891, 892 (5th Cir. 1980).1 On a motion
for summary judgment, the movant bears the initial burden of showing that no genuine issue of
material fact remains for trial. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); see also Zivojinovich
v. Barner, 525 F.3d 1059, 1066 (11th Cir. 2008). To avoid summary judgment, the opposing party
must come forward with specific facts in dispute that are material and of a substantial nature.
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 n.11 (1986). Conclusory
allegations, evidence that is not significantly probative, and personal opinions will not suffice to
defeat a motion for summary judgment. Johnson v. Fleet Fin., Inc., 4 F.3d 946, 949 (11th Cir.
1
Former Fifth Circuit decisions handed down prior to October 1, 1981, are binding precedent upon this Court. Bonner
v. City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981).
7
1993). Though the opposing party must present specific evidence showing a question of material
fact, the Court must draw all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the opposing party.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986).
B. Discussion
The Court finds that Defendants have failed to present any evidence creating a genuine issue
of material fact as to their seventh (7), eighth (8), ninth (9), tenth (10), eleventh (11) and twelfth (12)
affirmative defenses. None of the deposition testimony or other record evidence reveals any fault
on the part of the deceased, Central Transport, Inc., SAF-HOLLAND, or SAF-HOLLAND USA,
Inc. or HOLLAND USA, Inc..
The Court rejects Defendants’ argument that they have offered sufficient evidence that the
fifth wheel was the instrument that caused the deceased’s death, that it was in the sole control of the
deceased or Central Transport, and that the failure of the fifth wheel would not have happened in the
ordinary course of events had there been proper care that includes visual inspections. (Doc. No. 55
at 7.) This, Defendants contend, entitles them to the inference in aid of proof of negligence granted
by the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Under the doctrine,
Establishment of the facts that the instrument causing the injury was
in the sole control of the [party], that the occurrence would not have
happened in the ordinary course of events had there been proper care
on the [party’s] part, provides evidence that injury sprang from the
[party’s] negligence.
Yarbrough v. Ball U-Drive Sys., Inc., 48 So.2d 82, 83-84 (Fla. 1950); Empire Club, Inc. v.
Hernandez, 974 So.2d 447, 448-49 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
The Court disagrees with Defendants’ contention.
First, there is no evidence of the
deceased’s or Central Transport’s failure to visually inspect the fifth wheel assembly to support
8
Defendants’ argument that had they done so, the failure of the fifth wheel would not have happened.
Second, even if Defendants had offered sufficient evidence showing that the failure of the fifth
wheel assembly caused the deceased’s death, they provided no evidence that something other than
the collision caused the failure of the fifth wheel. In other words, Defendants have not shown that a
properly designed, properly manufactured, and properly maintained fifth wheel assembly would not
have failed under the circumstances in this case. For these reasons, Defendants’ res ipsa loquitur
argument fails. Lamentably for Defendants on this issue, conclusory statements are not sufficient
to overcome a summary judgment motion.
C. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, it is ordered as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of Donald J. Fournier, Jr., P.E. (Doc. No. 51),
filed on March 1, 2011, is GRANTED. Other than the limitations set forth herein, Mr.
Fournier’s testimony as to the analysis and reconstruction of the accident is not
excluded.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Affirmative Defenses 7, 10, 11
and 12 (Doc. No. 52), filed on March 1, 2011, is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Affirmative Defenses 8 and 9
(Doc. No. 53), filed on March 1, 2011, is GRANTED.
4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of John V. Marraccini, M.D. (Doc. No. 50),
filed on March 1, 2011, is taken under advisement.
9
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Jacksonville, Florida on July 5, 2011.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party
10
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?