Smith et al v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al
| Kristin M. Smith and Lloyd Smith |
| Toyota Motor Corporation and Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. |
| 2:2016cv00024 |
| April 28, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| Hannibal Office |
| Lewis |
| Patricia L. Cohen |
| Motor Vehicle Product Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
193
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff must pay $24,500.80 to Defendant pursuant to Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure based on the findings in this order and this Court's July 20, 2018, order. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on August 1, 2018. (MCB)
|
|
Filing
188
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Bill of Costs 172 is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant is given an additional seven days to submit sufficiently detailed invoices or oth er evidence reflecting the taxable printing and copying charges and expenses for the depositions of Mr. Klima and Mr. Meyer. At that point, this Court will make a ruling on Plaintiff's objections to those costs and provide the final total of costs to be awarded to Defendant. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on July 20, 2018. (MCB)
|
|
Filing
184
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial 173 . As stated in the Court's Order on June 20, 2018 183 , this Court will rule on the substance of Plaintiff's claim in her Motion for New Trial that "the Court prejudicially erred when it granted summary judgment as to strict liability for defective seatbelt design." Plaintiff is effectively requesting this Court alter or amend its order granting, in part, and denying, in part, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 59(e). Accordingly, this Court will treat the motion for new trial on this issue as a Rule 59(e) motion to amend. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial 173 is DENIED with respect to this claim. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 6/25/2018. (CBL)
|
|
Filing
183
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. This matter comes before the Court on the Court's Order 182 denying Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial 173 . In its ruling, the Court erroneously applied an older version of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which required motions to alter or amend to be filed within 10 days after the entry of judgment. The Rule has since been amended to allow 28 days after the entry of judgment to file a motion to alter or amend. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Under this versio n, Plaintiff's filing was timely. Accordingly, this Court vacates its prior ruling denying as untimely Plaintiffs claim in her Motion for New Trial 173 which effectively requests this Court alter or amend its order on Defendant's Motio n for Summary Judgment 103 . This Court will rule on the substance of this issue related to Plaintiffs alleged claim of defective seatbelt design of the Toyota 4Runner in an order to follow. The Court's rulings on Plaintiff's other grounds for her Motion for New Trial remain. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 6/20/2018. (CBL)
|
|
Filing
182
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial 173 is DENIED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 6/19/2018. (CBL)
|
|
Filing
141
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - (See Memorandum and Order for complete details.) This matter comes before the Court on a request by defense counsel for rulings on admissibility of certain deposition excerpts of Kozo Oyama. Arguments were presented during tr ial outside of the presence of the jury concerning four separate issues related to the admissibility of parts of a video deposition of Kozo Oyama. The rulings on these issues are as follows. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on April 23, 2018. (MCB)
|
|
Filing
130
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine Regarding Fault of Third Parties is DENIED as it relates to factual allegations made by Plaintiffs in the relevant state court complaint. IT IS FUR THER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine Regarding Ms. Smith's Driving Record and Seatbelt Citation is GRANTED in part. Defendants are not permitted to introduce any evidence related to Ms. Smith's citation for failure to wear a seatbelt. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion in Limine Regarding the Untimely Disclosed Records of Dr. Childress is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that regarding Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine Regarding Ms. Smith's seatbel t usage, Defendants are permitted to introduce evidence Ms. Smith was ejected from the vehicle. Should either party intend to offer an explanation for the ejection, namely concerning whether Ms. Smith was belted, counsel for the party must approach the bench before voir dire, opening statements, and introduction of any evidence for Court's approval to proceed. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 4/20/2018. (CBL)
|
|
Filing
120
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motions in Limine regarding untimely disclosed expert file materials and data; undisclosed or unsupported defect or negligence theories; testimony of untimely disclosed Steven Chat field; evidence regarding recalls of other products; evidence regarding suspension recall on the subject 4Runner; lost wages, earnings, income or financial status; use of exhibits not produced or made available for inspection; attempt to call atto rneys as witnesses; pretrial matters; deferred prosecution agreement; discovery disputes and discovery allegations, including spoliation claims regarding Toyota documents; interpretation of Toyotas documents by Plaintiffs' experts; reference to representation by defense counsel, size or location of law firms; and accident history of the product line are GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motions in Limine regarding size of company or net worth and intended use of jud gment proceeds and parts (3) and (4) of Defendants Motion in Limine regarding Plaintiffs' inflammatory reference to Toyota are GRANTED as to the first phase of trial, but DENIED as to the second phase of trial. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defe ndants' Motion in Limine regarding other similar incidents is GRANTED in part. Defendants and their experts shall limit their OSI evidence to no more than five vehicle rollovers involving (1) the same model year vehicle; (2) vehicles with over 100,000 miles of use with no modifications; and (3) the same topographical environment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion in Limine regarding untimely disclosed and unreliable records and opinions of Dr. Eugene Childress is GRANT ED as to references in Dr. Childress' report concerning mechanical failure of the vehicle, personal hardship on the part of the parties, and their loss of business and reference to their restaurant as a bar. The question of whether to exclude any evidence contained in Dr. Childress' report that relates to the seatbelt issue is under submission to the Court. The motion is DENIED as to all other parts of Dr. Childress' report. Parties shall convene and examine the doctor' s records, agree on the redactions, and submit the redacted versions to the Court for in camera review. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion in Limine regarding inflammatory reference to Toyota is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. T his Court grants the motion as to parts (2) and (5), and as stated above, it grants motion as to parts (3) and (4) as to the first phase of trial but overrules it as to the second phase of trial. As for part (1) of the motion, Plaintiffs will be a llowed to mention Toyota is a Japanese company, but they will not be permitted to make any derogatory comments related to this fact.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant' Motion in Limine related to statements regarding "consumer safety&qu ot; as purpose of suit is granted in part. To the extent there is discussion concerning "consumer safety," Plaintiffs will not be permitted to advocate the purpose of this lawsuit is to promote consumer safety.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion in Limine regarding collateral source is GRANTED. Plaintiffs will be limited to producing evidence of the actual cost of medical care or treatment when proving medical expenses. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion in Limin e regarding Plaintiffs' settlement with MoDOT is GRANTED. Any mention of settlement will be taken up in an in camera inspection of the settlement by the Court or outside of the presence of the jury. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine regarding character evidence of Plaintiff is GRANTED as to parts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. As to parts 3 and 7, this matter is under submission to the Court. As to part 8, Defendants are permitted to ask Ms. Smith and any other eyewitnes ses if Ms. Smith was using her phone during the time of the accident, but no other evidence on this issue will be permitted. Defendants are ordered to produce authority that the alleged violations contained in Ms. Smith's driving record can b e used to impeach her. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine regarding medical records is GRANTED as to any reference in her medical reports as to any medical information that is unrelated to the accident and any information concerning the financial health of the Plaintiffs or their business. The question of whether to exclude any evidence contained in Ms. Smith's medical records that relates to the seatbelt issue is under submission to the Court. IT IS FURTHER O RDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine regarding unreliable opinions of investigating Trooper Craig Reichart and his traffic incident report is DENIED as to everything in Trooper Reichart's report except on his conclusion Ms. Smith ove rsteered the vehicle. The Court will withhold its ruling on that issue until the time of Trooper Reichart's testimony. The Court must be informed by Defendants before seeking to introduce such evidence of his conclusion Ms. Smith oversteered. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that with respect to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine regarding notations Mr. Smith made on photographs, no use of the photos with notations will be permitted until Mr. Smith is identified as the writer of the notations on the photos. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine regarding seatbelt or ejection evidence is under submission to the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine regarding fault of third parties is under submission to the Court. Defendants are allowed to file further briefing by Defendants. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on April 17, 2018. (MCB)
|
|
Filing
103
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Supplemental Exhibit Affidavit of Steve Chatfield 75 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude/Disreg ard Declaration of Jon Sell 76 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 57 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants are granted summary judgment with respect to the following of Plaintiffs&# 039; claims: strict liability and negligent design defect of the vehicle's handling; strict liability and negligent design defect of the vehicle's seatbelt; strict liability and negligent failure to warn; and the breach of warranty claims related to these underlying products liability claims. Defendants are denied summary judgment with respect to the following of Plaintiffs' claims: strict liability and negligent design defect of the vehicle's rollover resistance; breach of warranty related to this claim; loss of consortium; and punitive damages. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Affirmative Defenses 55 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs are granted summary judgment with respect to the following of Defendants' affirmative defenses: state of the art; compliance with industry standards; and preemption. Plaintiffs are denied summary judgment with respect to the following of Defendants' affirmative defenses: modification and superseding and/or intervening cause. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 4/3/2018. (CBL)
|
|
Filing
79
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony 58 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. This Court grants Defendants' request to exclude expert witnesses from testifying as to whether, during the time of the accident, the subject Toyota 4Runner was in the same or substantially similar condition as when it was first sold. This Court denies Defendants' request to exclude testimony by Plaintiffs expert witnesses opining that the rollover crash was caused by an alleged design defect. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on March 13, 2018. (MCB)
|
|
Filing
54
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Expert Witness Disclosure 49 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline to depose expert witnesses shall be extended to January 5, 2018, the d eadline to complete all discovery shall be extended to January 5, 2018, and the deadline to file any motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment or motions for judgment on the pleadings is extended to January 19, 2018. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED t hat Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Expert Witness Disclosure and Alternative Motion for Leave to File Sur-reply 53 is moot. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 12/5/17. (EAB)
|
|
Filing
39
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel [ECF No. 32] is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Defendants shall produce the requested discovery outlined on page 6 for Toyota 4Runner models from January 1, 1990, through December 31, 2002, and Computer Aided Engineering work conducted by Toyota to study rollover resistance from January 1, 1990, to December 31, 2002. Plaintiffs' Motion in all other respects is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' request for costs and fees associated with its Motion to Compel is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' request for a protective order, for an award of costs related to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, and for cancellation of depositions [ECF No. 33] is DENIED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on April 21, 2017. (MCB)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
