Case Law Estate of Thompson v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd.

Estate of Thompson v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd.

Document Cited Authorities (71) Cited in (29) Related (2)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Frederick W. James, The James Law Firm, PC, Des Moines, IA, Douglas Richard Bradley, Scott Eric Nutter, Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman, Chtd., Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiffs.

Kevin M. Reynolds, Whitfield & Eddy, PLC, Des Moines, IA, Terrance M. Miller, Elizabeth Laudeman Moyo, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP, Columbus, OH, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES' PRETRIAL MOTIONS

MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.

+-----------------+
¦TABLE OF CONTENTS¦
+-----------------¦
¦                 ¦
+-----------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦I.  ¦INTRODUCTION                                           ¦1120  ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦A.  ¦Factual Background                                        ¦1120   ¦
+----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦B.  ¦Procedural Background                                     ¦1121   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦     ¦                                                              ¦       ¦
+-----+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦II.  ¦LEGAL ANALYSIS                                                ¦1123   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦A.  ¦Standards For Pretrial Evidentiary Challenges             ¦1123   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦Rule 104 And Preliminary Questions Of Admissibility   ¦1123  ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦Relevance and prejudice standards                     ¦1124  ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦3.  ¦Hearsay and exceptions                                ¦1125  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦B.  ¦Kawasaki's Pretrial Motions                               ¦1126   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦  ¦1.  ¦Exclusion of hearsay statements and lay opinions of Mr. Lachioma  ¦1126 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Testimony about what Mr. Welter said              ¦1126  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦i.   ¦Arguments of the parties                     ¦1126   ¦
+----+---+---+---+-----+---------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦ii.  ¦Analysis                                     ¦1126   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Testimony about how the accident occurred         ¦1128  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦i.   ¦Arguments of the parties                     ¦1128   ¦
+----+---+---+---+-----+---------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦ii.  ¦Analysis                                     ¦1129   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦  ¦ ¦c.  ¦Testimony about statements from internet fora or  “enthusiast publications”  ¦1131 ¦
¦   ¦  ¦ ¦    ¦                                                                                  ¦     ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦i.   ¦Arguments of the parties                     ¦1131   ¦
+----+---+---+---+-----+---------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦ii.  ¦Analysis                                     ¦1132   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦Exclusion of hearsay testimony of Randy Thompson      ¦1133  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Arguments of the parties                          ¦1133  ¦
+----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Analysis                                          ¦1134  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦3.  ¦Motion to bifurcate proceedings                       ¦1136  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Arguments of the parties                          ¦1136  ¦
+----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Analysis                                          ¦1137  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦4.  ¦Exclusion of similar incidents evidence               ¦1138  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Arguments of the parties                          ¦1138  ¦
+----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Analysis                                          ¦1139  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦5.  ¦Exclusion of causation opinions of the plaintiffs' expert  ¦1140  ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Arguments of the parties                          ¦1140  ¦
+----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Analysis                                          ¦1141  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦C.  ¦The Thompsons' Motion To Exclude Evidence                 ¦1143   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦Evidence no longer in dispute                         ¦1143  ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦Evidence still in dispute                             ¦1144  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦  ¦ ¦a.  ¦Evidence of the lack of other claims and “wobble/weave” incidents  ¦1144¦
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦i.   ¦Arguments of the parties                     ¦1144   ¦
+----+---+---+---+-----+---------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦ii.  ¦Analysis                                     ¦1144   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦  ¦ ¦b.  ¦Evidence that Scott Thompson caused his death or failed to mitigate his damages  ¦1146 ¦
¦  ¦  ¦ ¦    ¦                                                                                 ¦     ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦i.   ¦Arguments of the parties                     ¦1146   ¦
+----+---+---+---+-----+---------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦ii.  ¦Analysis                                     ¦1146   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
...
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2013
Individually v. Advanced Bionics, L.L.C.
"...renders the product not reasonably safe.” SeeRestatement (Third) § 2(b); see also Estate of Thompson v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd., 933 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1137 (N.D.Iowa 2013); Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co. v. SMA Elevator Constr., Inc., 816 F.Supp.2d 631, 657–58 (N.D.Iowa 2011). Here, the..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri – 2015
Bry v. City of Frontenac
"...Evidence 807, asexceptions to the ban on admissibility of hearsay." (ECF No. 168 at 4-5 (citing Estate of Thompson v. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, 933 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1134-35 (N.D. Iowa 2013)).3 Robin may be considered unavailable because she asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege during her ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin – 2013
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Aurora Health Care Inc.
"..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri – 2019
Taylor v. Jenkins
"...declarant's will." "The state of mind at issue is the declarant's, not the testifying witness's." Estate of Thompson v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd., 933 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1132 (N.D. Iowa 2013) (citing First Nat'l Bank in Sioux Falls v. First Nat'l Bank South Dakota, 679 F.3d 763, 768 (8th C..."
Document | Mississippi Court of Appeals – 2020
Murray v. Gray
"...we find persuasive the reasoning of a federal district court that addressed the same issue. Estate of Thompson v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus. Ltd. , 933 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1152 (N.D. Iowa 2013). The court in that case had already denied a pretrial motion to exclude the expert's testimony. Id. The ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
2 firm's commentaries
Document | Mondaq United States – 2022
Prior Daubert Orders And Discovery Lessons Out Of N.D. Cal.
"...Grp., Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:15-CV-01370-EJD, (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2018), and Est. of Thompson v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd., 933 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1152 (N.D. Iowa 2013). He explained that because Daubert rulings come from judges, juries may give them undue weight. Thus, allowing par..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2022
Prior Daubert Orders And Discovery Lessons Out Of N.D. Cal.
"...Grp., Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:15-CV-01370-EJD, (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2018), and Est. of Thompson v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd., 933 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1152 (N.D. Iowa 2013). He explained that because Daubert rulings come from judges, juries may give them undue weight. Thus, allowing par..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2013
Individually v. Advanced Bionics, L.L.C.
"...renders the product not reasonably safe.” SeeRestatement (Third) § 2(b); see also Estate of Thompson v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd., 933 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1137 (N.D.Iowa 2013); Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co. v. SMA Elevator Constr., Inc., 816 F.Supp.2d 631, 657–58 (N.D.Iowa 2011). Here, the..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri – 2015
Bry v. City of Frontenac
"...Evidence 807, asexceptions to the ban on admissibility of hearsay." (ECF No. 168 at 4-5 (citing Estate of Thompson v. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, 933 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1134-35 (N.D. Iowa 2013)).3 Robin may be considered unavailable because she asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege during her ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin – 2013
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Aurora Health Care Inc.
"..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri – 2019
Taylor v. Jenkins
"...declarant's will." "The state of mind at issue is the declarant's, not the testifying witness's." Estate of Thompson v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd., 933 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1132 (N.D. Iowa 2013) (citing First Nat'l Bank in Sioux Falls v. First Nat'l Bank South Dakota, 679 F.3d 763, 768 (8th C..."
Document | Mississippi Court of Appeals – 2020
Murray v. Gray
"...we find persuasive the reasoning of a federal district court that addressed the same issue. Estate of Thompson v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus. Ltd. , 933 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1152 (N.D. Iowa 2013). The court in that case had already denied a pretrial motion to exclude the expert's testimony. Id. The ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
2 firm's commentaries
Document | Mondaq United States – 2022
Prior Daubert Orders And Discovery Lessons Out Of N.D. Cal.
"...Grp., Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:15-CV-01370-EJD, (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2018), and Est. of Thompson v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd., 933 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1152 (N.D. Iowa 2013). He explained that because Daubert rulings come from judges, juries may give them undue weight. Thus, allowing par..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2022
Prior Daubert Orders And Discovery Lessons Out Of N.D. Cal.
"...Grp., Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:15-CV-01370-EJD, (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2018), and Est. of Thompson v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd., 933 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1152 (N.D. Iowa 2013). He explained that because Daubert rulings come from judges, juries may give them undue weight. Thus, allowing par..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial