Jimenez-Otero v. Hamilton

668 F.Supp.3d 117

Angel JIMENEZ-OTERO;Maria Colon-Ramirez; the Conjugal Partnership Constituted Between Them, Plaintiffs, v. Charles Lee HAMILTON; Government Employees Insurance Company;GEICO Indemnity Company; Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.;Toyota Motor Corporation (Japan);Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.;"John Doe 1" to "John Doe 50"; "John Doe 51" to "John Doe 100", Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-01124-WGY

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico

Signed April 10, 2023

Jorge Carazo-Quetglas, Carazo Quetglas Law Office, Guaynabo, PR, for Plaintiffs.

Benjamin Acosta, Jr., Law Offices Benjamin Acosta, Jr., Old San Juan, PR, Jose A. Andreu-Collazo, Andreu & Sagardia Law Office, San Juan, PR, for Defendant Charles L. Hamilton.

Antonio Gnocchi-Franco, Gnocchi-Franco Law Office, San Juan, PR, James Karl Viehman, Yesenia E. Cardenas-Colenso, Pro Hac Vice, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Plano, TX, for Defendant Toyota Motor Sale, USA, Inc.

Antonio Gnocchi-Franco, Gnocchi-Franco Law Office, San Juan, PR, Yesenia E. Cardenas-Colenso, Pro Hac Vice, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Plano, TX, for Defendants Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.

ORDER

YOUNG, DISTRICT JUDGE¹

At the March 9, 2023 hearing, the Court allowed Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Motor Corporation (Japan), Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.'s (collectively "the Toyota Defendants") motion for summary judgment on all of the claims brought by Angel Jimenez-Otero And Maria Colon-Ramirez ("the Plaintiffs"), save for a manufacturing defect claim which it took under advisement. Even presuming without ruling that the plaintiffs could prove a manufacturing defect existed without expert testimony, the Plaintiffs' expert, Iván Baigés-Valentín ("Dr. Baigés"), is not qualified to prove causation of the purported injuries.

The Toyota Defendants' Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert (ECF No. 82) is ALLOWED, in part, only as to Dr. Baigés's opinions as to biomechanics and causal nexus relating to the injuries. Accordingly, without a properly qualified expert as to causation, the manufacturing defect claim does not survive summary judgment, and that motion (ECF No. 84) is ALLOWED as to the Toyota Defendants.

"To succeed on a manufacturing defect claim, under Puerto Rico law Plaintiffs must prove four essential elements; viz. (1) the . . . air bag had a "manufacturing defect" of which [plaintiff] was unaware, (2) the defect made the air bag system "unsafe," (3) the usage to which the air bag was put by [plaintiff] was reasonably foreseeable by [defendant], and (4) the defect proximately caused injury to [the plaintiff]." Hernandez Denizac v. Kia Motors Corp., 323 F. Supp. 3d 277, 283-84 (D.P.R. 2018) (quoting Perez-Trujillo v. Volvo Car Corp. (Sweden), 137 F.3d 50, 53 (1st Cir. 1998)). Toyota Defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment because the Plaintiffs "did not designate a biomechanical engineer to offer expert testimony concerning Plaintiffs' individualize injuries, impact trauma, and the causative nexus, if any, of Plaintiffs' injuries with the specific defects Plaintiffs claim existed in the Toyota Tundra." Mot. Summ. J. 9. The Court agrees.

Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides:

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Fed. R. Evid. 702. As the Supreme Court holds, "the Federal Rules of Evidence 'assign to the trial judge the task of ensuring that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.' " Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 141, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999) (quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S.579, 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469); accord Rebarber-Ocasio v. Feliciano-Munoz, 3:16-CV-02719-JAW, 2022 WL 2063858, at *3 (D.P.R. June 8, 2022) (Woodcock, J.).

Here, a review of Dr. Baigés's curriculum vitae reveals that other than a vague claim of "[k]nowledge of human performance related...