J.B. Hunt Transport v. General Motors Corporation

J. B. Hunt Transport, Inc. (J. B. Hunt) appeals from the judgment of the district
court,1 entered upon a jury verdict in favor of defendants, General Motors Corporation (General Motors) and Fisher & Company (Fisher), in this products liability contribution
action. J. B. Hunt asserts that the district court erred by excluding certain expert
testimony and other offered evidence, and as a result, a new trial is warranted. * * * This appeal stems from a multiple vehicle collision occurring on February 19,
1994, on Interstate 70 (I-70) in St. Charles, Missouri. Richard and Alicia Spitzenberg
were traveling westbound in a 1991 Chevrolet Camaro. Alicia was driving, and
Richard was sitting in the passenger seat not wearing his seatbelt. As Alicia merged
onto I-70, a Toyota Corolla in front of her slowed, causing Alicia to decelerate and a
J. B. Hunt 18-wheel tractor trailer to hit the rear end of the Spitzenbergs' Camaro. The
initial impact caused Richard to lose consciousness and the Camaro to careen into the
Toyota and a nearby Ford Crown Victoria. In turn, the Camaro spun and again collided
with the J. B. Hunt truck. The Camaro finally came to rest facing northeast in the
westbound lanes of I-70.

Richard Spitzenberg filed suit against J. B. Hunt, asserting he sustained
catastrophic injuries when his head hit the Camaro's rear seatback during the accident.
J. B. Hunt settled the suit with Richard for over $2.6 million and sued General Motors,
the Camaro's manufacturer, and Fisher, a component seat manufacturer, for
contribution. J. B. Hunt proceeded to trial on the theory that the Camaro's front seat
was not crashworthy. J. B. Hunt contended that upon impact, the front seatback
reclined, which allowed Richard to ramp up the reclined front seatback and strike the
back of the rear seat, and that this sequence of events precipitated his injuries.

Prior to trial, defendants filed a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of J.
B. Hunt's accident reconstructionist, Jerry Wallingford. Defendants argued that
Wallingford's trial testimony would advance a theory not supported by the evidence; specifically, that the J. B. Hunt truck collided with the Camaro only once, making for
a total of three impacts sustained by the Camaro--one impact with the truck, one with
the Toyota, and one with the Ford. The district court denied defendants' motion under
the impression that J. B. Hunt would present eyewitness testimony supporting
Wallingford's three-impact theory.

During the jury trial, the district court allowed Wallingford to testify over
defendants' renewed objections. Wallingford testified that because he had insufficient
information, he was unable to scientifically reconstruct the accident. (Tr. at 293, 309-
10.) After hearing this concession, the district court excused the jury and
independently heard the remainder of Wallingford's testimony. Wallingford stated to
the court that, based upon his examination of photographs taken of the involved
vehicles, the tractor trailer struck the Camaro only once, thus lending credence to his
three-impact theory. The district court ruled that because uncontradicted eye witness
testimony established that the tractor trailer hit the Camaro twice, it was excluding
Wallingford's testimony. The district court further concluded that the testimony was
inadmissible in light of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and
that Wallingford's photograph analysis as a proffered explanation for the three-impact
theory lacked scientific support.

J. B. Hunt also called Anthony Sances, a biomechanical expert and claimed
expert in "foamology," to testify about the manner in which Richard Spitzenberg
received his injuries during the crash. The district court permitted Sances to testify as
to where he believed Richard made contact with the rear seat but refused to allow
Sances to bolster his testimony with any analysis of the Camaro's rear seat foam
thickness. The district court stated:

He is not an expert in foam, and as best as I can tell, there is no science
of foam. . . . [H]e has no idea what happens to foam under normal circumstances, so how can he have any scientific basis for basing any of
his conclusions on what happened to the foam in this case?

Moreover, the district court concluded that Sances's testimony was
derivative of the already excluded Wallingford testimony and therefore inappropriate.

At the conclusion of the eight-day trial, the jury found in favor of defendants.
J. B. Hunt now appeals and requests a new trial.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.

Affirmed.

Jerry Wallingford, accident reconstructionist and Anthony Sances, biomechanical engineer

Unknown

None