Like with any civil litigation, product liability lawsuits require careful examination not just of the injuries sustained and the cause, but whether the vehicle was in fact defective. People are injured and killed all the time on our roads, and it doesn’t necessarily mean there was a problem with the car itself. Proving vehicle defects – even when there has been a recall of that vehicle or a certain part – often requires the testimony of an expert witness, such as an accident reconstructionist, engineer or mechanic.

For years in Florida, we vetted the testimony of these witnesses under a set of guidelines known as the “Frye Standard.” This standard asked simply whether the expert opinion was based on a scientific technique that was generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific community. However, a law that became effective in 2013 (to the delight of civil lawsuit defendants) required instead that the state begin using the Daubert standard. The revision of F.S. 90.702 means that expert witnesses now must endure a significant amount of pre-trial scrutiny, which in turn has made it tougher for plaintiffs to succeed in getting their case to trial. However, the Florida Supreme Court is currently weighing whether to revert back to the Frye Standard (a power it has, despite the legislative action, because it involves court procedure). 

Texas, too, uses the Daubert standard, and as we saw in the recent case of Sims v. Kia Motors Corp., before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, it can result in significant hurdles for plaintiffs in car accident lawsuits.

According to court records, decedent (a father and grandfather) was seated in the back seat of a 2010 Kia Soul when the driver collided with another vehicle. The force of that impact caused the vehicle to be tossed like a pinball across the intersection, slamming into various objects in its path. One of those objects was a Yield sign. Part of that sign got stuck underneath the vehicle and pierced the gas tank. When the vehicle came to a stop, the driver and front seat passenger got out safely. But decedent two other passengers in the back were trapped because the doors wouldn’t open. With the gas tank ruptured, it exploded and the vehicle burst into flames. The three passengers died in the fire.

Plaintiff, one of decedent’s sons, sued the car manufacturer, alleging defective design. He asserted the manufacture should have made a gas tank that wasn’t prone to explosion and further that if a fire in the gas tank does occur, the vehicle doesn’t immediately explode so the people inside have a chance to get out.

Plaintiff presented the testimony of two expert witnesses to back his claim, both engineers. One was to testify about the way in which the sign pierced the underside of the vehicle and the other who would assert there was a doable, safer alternative design that would have prevented this kind of deadly fuel tank rupture. Defense moved to exclude these testimony under the Daubert standard, arguing it was not reliable.

The trial court granted that motion and plaintiff appealed. The 5th DCA affirmed. In keeping in line with the Daubert standard, the court ruled, the expert witness testimony was inadequate. Without that expert witness testimony, plaintiff did not have enough evidence to take the case to trial.

If you have been a victim of a traffic accident, call Chalik & Chalik at (954) 476-1000 or 1 (800) 873-9040.

Additional Resources:

Sims v. Kia Motors Corp., Oct. 5, 2016, Miami Car Accident Lawyer Blog

More Blog Entries:

$35M Wrongful Death Verdict in Trucking Accident Lawsuit, Oct. 3, 2016, Miami Car Accident Lawyer Blog

The Court ruled that “…The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court..”  With these 9 words, the Court split 4 to 4, and without a 9th and deciding Justice, permitted an injunction against implementing these programs imposed by a Texas District Court and upheld by the Fifth Circuit to stand.

As background, in November, 2014, and arising out frustration with Congressional inaction  on comprehensive immigration legislation, President Obama and his Administration created two executive actions programs: Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Permanent Residents (“DAPA”) and an expanded program for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”), an earlier executive action program to benefit certain children who accompanied their parents into the United States at an early age.  The programs if implemented would shield certain parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents from removal, and certain young people from removal based on enforcement priorities, and would expand who could qualify for DACA.  Texas and 25 other states sued the federal government alleging overreach of the powers of the executive branch in taking these steps.

There has been no trial on the merits, only appeals on the propriety of the injunction decision itself up to the Supreme Court.  The case now goes back to the District Court to be tried.  Procedurally, the Administration could request a rehearing before the full Court.  Whether it does so remains to be seen.

In the second case, the City of Hazelton, Pennsylvania passed employment and housing ordinances in 2006 aimed at controlling illegal immigration by limiting those who could work and live in that city only to persons who could prove legal status in the United States.  The high court let stand a Third Circuit decision finding that the local ordinance was preempted by federal immigration law. Both actions were championed by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Korbach.

Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz, PC. is an immigration law firm representing businesses and foreign nationals in employment-based visa cases. To learn more or to contact a Dallas immigration lawyer, visit http://www.rabinowitzrabinowitz.com.

In the second case, the City of Hazelton, Pennsylvania passed employment and housing ordinances in 2006 aimed at controlling illegal immigration by limiting those who could work and live in that city only to persons who could prove legal status in the United States.  The high court let stand a Third Circuit decision finding that the local ordinance was preempted by federal immigration law. Both actions were championed by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Korbach.

Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz, PC. is an immigration law firm representing businesses and foreign nationals in employment-based visa cases. To learn more or to contact a Dallas immigration lawyer, visit http://www.rabinowitzrabinowitz.com.