Linder et al v. Ford Motor Company, et al

Filing 157

ORDER that 119 Plaintiffs' Omnibus Motion in Limine is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Signed by Judge Lloyd D. George on 9/30/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10

MATTHEW R. LINDNER, et al.,

11

Plaintiffs,

12

v.

13

Case No. 2:10-cv-00051-LDG (VCF)

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.,

14

ORDER

Defendants.

15
16

The plaintiffs filed an omnibus motion in limine (#119), listing 26 separate matters on

17

which they sought a ruling. This Court held a hearing on the motion on July 7, 2015. At

18

that hearing, the plaintiffs withdrew matters ## 16, 23, 24, and 26. The defendant also

19

indicated during that, with the exception of matter #1, it did not object to the Court granting

20

the plaintiffs’ requested ruling as to the remaining items, provided that the ruling applied

21

equally to both parties. As such, the only remaining matter on which the parties seek

22

resolution is matter #1, in which the plaintiffs broadly sought to preclude the defendant from

23

offering evidence or eliciting testimony that the plaintiffs’ damages were caused by the

24

conduct of the plaintiff or any third party, or that the plaintiffs’ damages were proximately

25

caused by the acts or omissions of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was comparatively

26

negligent.

1

While the plaintiffs’ initial motion did not specifically identify any potential evidence

2

or argument that the plaintiffs’ sought to exclude, the defendant’s opposing brief and the

3

plaintiffs’ reply, as well as the arguments of the parties, have brought a sharper focus to the

4

ruling requested by plaintiffs. This lawsuit arises from a single-car rollover accident. Prior

5

to the accident, Camila Lindner was seated in a two-piece car seat, consisting of a base

6

and an infant carrier, manufactured by the defendant. The plaintiffs allege the car seat was

7

defectively designed because the carrier’s release handle was vulnerable to unintended

8

unlatching during a rollover accident. They further allege that, during the rollover accident

9

at issue, the infant carrier portion of the seat detached from the base when the carrier’s

10
11

unprotected release handle contacted the f ront seat.
As indicated by the defendant, it intends to argue that the proximate cause of the

12

carrier separating from its base was Elsy Lindner colliding with the car seat during the

13

rollover. In connection with this argument, the defendant intends to argue (and offer

14

evidence) showing that Elsy was not wearing a seatbelt. The defendant has also indicated

15

it intends to present evidence that the actions of Fernando Granados-Martinez, the driver

16

of the vehicle, was the proximate cause of the accident.

17

The Court will deny plaintiffs’ motion as it concerns whether Elsy Lindner was

18

wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident. The plaintiffs argue that evidence that Elsy

19

was not wearing a seatbelt is contrary to NRS 484B.653, which provides that the violation

20

of the statute requiring an individual to wear a seltbelt may not be considered as

21

negligence or as causation in any civil action. The argument fails because the defendants

22

have not argued that the proximate cause of the carrier detaching from its base was that

23

Elsy was not wearing her seltbelt. Rather, they have argued that the proximate cause of

24

the carrier’s detachment was that Elsy collided with the carrier. Evidence that Elsy was not

25

wearing a seltbelt is relevant to determining whether Elsy collided with the carrier and

26

whether that collision caused the carrier to detach f rom the base.
2

1

To the extent that plaintiffs argue that there is no evidence to support the

2

defendant’s theory, the argument does not warrant a pre-trial ruling in the context of a

3

motion in limine. Such an argument is more appropriately raised in a motion for summary

4

judgment or partial summary judgment, in which the parties can offer evidence in support

5

of their respective positions. As the plaintiffs have raised their argument in the context of a

6

motion for limine, the Court accepts the defendant’s representations that they have

7

evidence in support of their theory and will deny the motion.

8
9

A pre-trial ruling concerning the conduct of Fernando in driving the vehicle presents
a closer question. The defendant has been careful to argue that Fernando’s conduct

10

proximately caused the accident. Assuming that the driver’s conduct proximately caused

11

the accident, such assumption does not lead to the conclusion that the driv er’s conduct

12

proximately caused Camila’s death.

13

However, the defendant has also argued that the carrier’s detachment from the base

14

was the result of the dynamics of the rollover that culminated in Elsy’s collision with the

15

carrier. While the parties dispute the specific dynamics of the rollover accident, and its

16

relevance to the carrier’s detachment, the evidence concerning those dynamics would be

17

relevant and admissible in support of defendant’s theory. The issue, however, is whether

18

evidence of the driver’s conduct is relevant to resolving factual issues regarding the

19

dynamics of the rollover. For example, it may be that the speed of the vehicle at the time

20

of the accident is relevant to determinations regarding the dynamics of this rollover

21

accident. It would appear to the Court, at this time, that evidence regarding the speed of

22

the vehicle at the time of the accident reflects the conduct of the driver. That is, evidence

23

that the vehicle was traveling at a certain speed would suggest the driver was causing the

24

vehicle to travel at that speed. As such, a ruling precluding any evidence of the speed of

25

the vehicle (because it is evidence of the conduct of the driver) would be overly broad.

26
3

1

By contrast, however, it does not appear that evidence that the vehicle was rolling

2

during the accident requires the admission of evidence regarding the conduct of the driver.

3

The cause of the accident, whether driver error or mechanical failure, is not necessarily

4

relevant to determining the dynamics involved after the cause has occurred. At this time,

5

the Court will partially grant the plaintiffs’ motion to preclude the defendant from offering

6

evidence, or arguing, that the conduct of the driver was the proximate cause of either the

7

accident or Camila’s death. To be certain, this ruling does not preclude defendant from

8

arguing, or offering evidence, relevant to the dynamics and forces involved in the rollover,

9

even if such evidence necessarily reflects the conduct of the driver. However, the

10

defendant is precluded from offering evidence, or arguing, that attributes such dynamics or

11

forces to the conduct of the driver. Further, as the context of the plaintiffs’ motion is not

12

specific to any evidence, this ruling is without prejudice to either party requesting

13

reconsideration in the context of specific evidence.

14

Therefore,

15

THE COURT ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Motion in Limine (#119) is

16

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: The motion is DENIED as moot with

17

respect to matters ## 16, 23, 24, and 26; The motion is GRANTED in part, without

18

prejudice, as to matter #1 to the extent that the Defendant is precluded from offering

19

evidence, or arguing, that the driver’s conduct was the proximate cause of the accident or

20

Camila Lindner’s death and is otherwise DENIED as to matter #1; The motion is

21

GRANTED as to each of the remaining matters, with each such ruling applying equally to

22

both parties.

23

DATED this ______ day of September, 2015.

24
25

Lloyd D. George
United States District Judge

26
4