Wilson et al v. Takata Corporation et al

Filing 50

ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that defendants' 12 motion for partial summary judgment on damages is GRANTED, dismissing plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 6/20/2019. (jls)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SABRA M. WILSON, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 16-1356

TAKATA CORPORATION, ET AL.

SECTION “B”(3)

ORDER AND RASONS
Defendants Nissan North America, Inc. (“NNA”) and Nissan
Motor Company, Ltd. (“NML”) (collectively “Nissan”) filed a motion
for partial summary judgment. Rec. Doc. 12. Plaintiffs filed a
response in opposition. Rec. Doc. 18. Defendants sought, and were
granted, leave to file a reply. Rec. Doc. 37.
For the reasons discussed below,
IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motion for partial summary
judgment on damages is GRANTED, dismissing plaintiffs’ claim for
punitive damages.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Sabra Wilson alleges that she was driving her 2006
Nissan Sentra in Montz, Louisiana on March 21, 2015 when, during
“stop-and-go” slowed traffic due to heavy smoke from a nearby marsh
fire, she inadvertently rear-ended a vehicle in front of her. Rec.
Doc. 11-5 at 287; Rec. Doc. 2 at 7. As a result of the impact,
plaintiffs allege that the vehicle’s front, passenger side airbag
deployed violently and with overly excessive force and sound,
expelling hot metal shrapnel and other parts of the inflator into

1

the interior of the vehicle, striking Ms. Wilson’s right side,
face, and hands and causing her serious injuries. Id; Rec. Doc. 2
at 8. Plaintiffs also allege that the explosion resulted in
significant and permanent property damage to the vehicle, owned by
plaintiff William R. Wilson, and rendered the vehicle economically
infeasible to repair. Rec. Doc. 11-5 at 288; Id. Plaintiffs were
citizens of Saint Charles Parish, Louisiana at the time of the
accident and the subject vehicle was purchased by Mr. Wilson in
Metairie, Louisiana. Rec. Doc. 12-1 at 2.
This case was transferred to the Southern District of Florida
as part of the ongoing multidistrict litigation regarding Takata
airbag products on March 2, 2016. Rec. Doc. 6. As directed by the
MDL court, a Second Amended Consolidated Personal Injury Track
Complaint (“SACC”) was filed that consolidated the claims of all
personal

injury

plaintiffs

in

the

multidistrict

litigation,

including the plaintiffs in this case. Rec. Doc. 11-5. The SACC
asserted negligence and strict liability claims against Nissan
defendants, “including design defect, manufacturing defect, and
failure to warn, under the common law of the state whose law
applies to the underling Personal Injury Track action or the
statutory law of such state, including but not limited to the
Louisiana Products Liability Act.” Rec. Doc. 11-5 at 209; Rec.
Doc. 11-6 at 11-12. Plaintiffs seek damages for bodily injury,
pain and suffering, physical impairment, mental anguish, past and
2

future loss of capacity for enjoyment, past and future medical
expenses, past lost wages and future lost wage-earning capacity,
and damage to the vehicle. Rec. Doc. 11-6 at 11-12. Plaintiffs
also

seek

punitive

damages.

Id.

The

Takata

defendants

were

dismissed from this case on May 14, 2018 (Rec. Doc. 30), and the
case was subsequently remanded back to this Court on November 19,
2018. Rec. Doc. 10.
Defendants now file the instant motion for partial summary
judgment to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages with
prejudice.

Rec.

Doc.

12.

Plaintiffs

filed

an

opposition

in

response. Rec. Doc. 18. Defendants filed a reply. Rec. Doc. 27.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Summary

judgment

is

appropriate

when

“the

pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). A genuine
issue of material fact exists if the evidence would allow a
reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). When
the movant bears the burden of proof, it must “demonstrate the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact” using competent
summary judgment evidence. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. But “where
3

the non-movant bears the burden of proof at trial, the movant may
merely point to an absence of evidence.” Lindsey v. Sears Roebuck
& Co., 16 F.3d 616, 618 (5th Cir. 1994). When the movant meets its
burden, the burden shifts to the non-movant, who must show by
“competent summary judgment evidence” that there is a genuine issue
of material fact. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith
Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986); Lindsey, 16 F.3d at 618.
Louisiana Civil Code Article 3542 provides the general rule
on resolving conflicts of law in tort or delictual actions, stating
that they shall be “governed by the law of the state whose policies
would be most seriously impaired if its law were not applied.” La.
C.C. Art. 3542. However, the commentary on Article 3542 explains
that, where applicable, the specific rules of Articles 3543-3546
shall prevail over Article 3542, because they

“are a priori

legislative determinations of ‘the state whose policies would be
most seriously impaired if its law were not applied’.” Id. at
Subsection (b) to Revision Comments–1991. Article 3545 provides
the specific choice-of-law rule for product liability cases. It
states that the law of Louisiana shall apply:
(1) when the injury was sustained in this state by a
person domiciled or residing in this state; or (2) when
the product was manufactured, produced, or acquired in
this state and caused the injury either in this state or
in another state to a person domiciled in this state.
La. C.C. Art. 3545.

4

Article 3547, however, provides an escape from the choiceof-law

rules

of

Articles

3543-3546

for

certain

“exceptional

cases”. Article 3547 states that the law applicable under Articles
3543-3546 shall not apply if:
from the totality of the circumstances of an exceptional
case, it is clearly evident under the principles of
Article 3542, that the policies of another state would
be more seriously impaired if its law were not applied
to the particular issue. In such event, the law of the
other state shall apply.
La. C.C. Art. 3547.
A. Louisiana Law Applies
Louisiana Civil Code Article 3545 states that Louisiana law
applies to cases where the injury was sustained in Louisiana by a
person domiciled or residing in Louisiana. It is undisputed that
the car accident at issue in this case occurred in Montz, Louisiana
and both plaintiffs were Louisiana residents at the time of the
accident. Rec. Doc. 12-1 at 2; Rec. Doc. 2 at 2. Additionally,
Article 3545 states that Louisiana law also applies when the
product

was

acquired

in

Louisiana

and

caused

injury

either

in Louisiana or to a person domiciled in Louisiana. In this case,
it

is undisputed that the vehicle was purchased in Metairie,

Louisiana

and

caused

injuries

in

Montz,

Louisiana

to

plaintiffs who are domiciled in Louisiana. Rec. Doc. 12-1 at 2;
Rec. Doc. 12-2 at 7. Therefore, under both prongs of Article
3545, Louisiana law should apply.

5

The Louisiana Products Liability Act (“LPLA”) establishes the
exclusive
caused

by

theories
their

of

liability

products.

See

for
LA.

manufacturers
R.S.

for

§2800.52.

damage

The

LPLA

establishes theories of liability for claims based on construction
or composition, design, inadequate warning, and nonconformity to
express warranty. See La. R.S. §2500.55-58. The LPLA does not allow
recovery

of

punitive

damages,

as

courts

in

Louisiana

have

repeatedly recognized. See Shively v. Ethicon, Inc., 2018 WL
6816083,

at

*4

(W.D.

La.

Dec.

27,

2018);

McLaughlin

v.

GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, 2014 WL 669349, at *3 (W.D. La. Jan. 6,
2014); Pierre v. Medtronic, Inc., 2018 WL 1911829, at *5 (E.D. La.
Apr. 23, 2018); Bladen v. C.B. Fleet Holding Co., 487 F. Supp. 2d
759, 770 (W.D. La. 2007); Cheeks v. Bayer Corp., 2003 WL 1748460,
at

*1

(E.D.

La.

Mar.

28,

2003).

Plaintiffs acknowledge that punitive damages under the LPLA
are now allowed. However, they argue that the LPLA should not apply
to their punitive damages claim, and we should instead apply the
laws

of

either

California

or

Tennessee

under

Article

3547.

Therefore, absent the application of Article 3547, both parties
agree that punitive damages would not be allowed.

B. Article 3547 Does Not Apply
As noted earlier, Louisiana Civil Code Article 3547 applies
only to “exceptional case[s]” where “it is clearly evident” from
6

the totality of the circumstances that the policies of another
state “would be more seriously impaired” if its law were not
applied. In a nearly identical argument as here for the application
of Article 3547, the Western District of Louisiana considered and
rejected it. Shively v. Ethicon was a products liability case
involving an allegedly defective medical device. See Shively v.
Ethicon, Inc., 2018 WL 6816083, at *1 (W.D. La. Dec. 27, 2018).
Plaintiffs

were

Louisiana

residents

who

claimed

they

were

implanted with a defective medical device in Louisiana that caused
them serious injuries. They brought a products liability case
against

the

New

Jersey

based

manufacturer

seeking

punitive

damages. The Shively plaintiffs argued that Article 3547’s escape
mechanism permitted the application of New Jersey’s law on punitive
damages in their case. Id. The Court held that plaintiffs’ case
was “simply not the kind of truly exceptional case to which Article
3547 was intended to apply.” Id. at *5. The Court explained that
“[n]umerous products liability actions are brought in Louisiana
each year,” many involving products manufactured out of state that
have caused injury to Louisiana residents. Id. Therefore, while
recognizing

that

New

Jersey

had

an

interest

in

preventing

manufacturers of defective products from placing them in the stream
of commerce and failing to warn of the dangers associated with
such products, the Court found this interest was “not so great as

7

to transform this into an exceptional case which trumps Article
3545.” Id.
This

Court

finds

the

Western

District

of

Louisiana’s

reasoning persuasive here. There is nothing exceptional about the
interests

of

California

or

Tennessee

in

this

case

that

distinguishes them from those present in numerous other products
liability cases. While we recognize, as the Shively court did,
that California and Tennessee have an interest in deterring the
manufacturers
overcome

of

defective

Louisiana’s

products,

interests

in

a

this
case

interest
where

does

the

not

injuries

occurred in Louisiana, the defective product was acquired in
Louisiana, and the plaintiffs are Louisiana residents. Plaintiffs
point to defendants’ actions in allegedly continuing to install
the defective airbags as evidence that this case is “exceptional”.
Rec. Doc. 18 at 6-7. However, the relevant consideration for the
Court in this analysis is the interests of the foreign states, not
the

nature

of

defendants’

alleged

conduct.

The

interests

of

California and Tennessee that would arguably be impaired in this
case by not permitting plaintiffs to seek punitive damages are
identical to the interests arguably impaired in every products
liability case involving Louisiana residents and an out-of-state
manufacturer.

There

is

nothing

exceptional

about

the

foreign

states interests in this case that would outweigh Louisiana’s
interests.

Professor

Symeonides’
8

scholarly

article,

cited

by

plaintiffs, is not outcome determinative. While the article posits
that “it is theoretically possible for a court to award punitive
damages under a foreign law in a products case that is otherwise
governed by Louisiana law,” Professor Symeonides qualifies this
hypothetical statement by limiting it to only those situations
where “the court is convinced that . . . the case is exceptional
enough to warrant invoking the escape clause of article 3547.”
Rec. Doc. 18 at 5. We do not find this case to be “exceptional
enough” – using the Professor’s qualifier - to warrant invoking
the escape clause for the reasons discussed above. Further, the
article does not provide any new information that would alter our
analysis.
Additionally, plaintiffs do not provide any relevant basis
for the request for discovery on this matter. Plaintiffs simply
state that discovery is needed “to determine whether the Court
should
whether

apply
and

California
to

what

or

Tennessee

extent

law”

Defendants’

and

conduct

“to

establish

warrants

the

application of a foreign state’s punitive damages law.” Rec.
Doc. 18 at 8. Further discovery into defendants’ conduct will
not change the law on this issue and there are no other specific
areas

of

discovery

that

would

impact

the

above

analysis.

Accordingly, the LPLA applies and punitive damages are thereby
disallowed.

9

New Orleans, Louisiana this 20th day of June, 2019

___________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10