Date: 06-27-2014

Case Style: Carlos Martinez v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.

Case Number: 111203763

Judge: Shelly Robins-New

Court: Superior Court, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania

Plaintiff's Attorney: Stewart Eisenberg

Defendant's Attorney: Robert A. Bradfield, William J. Conroy, Tiffany M. Alexander, Daniel J. Sherry, Jr., Harry D. McMunigal, Sandra M. Moss, Christopher G. Mavros

Description: Carlos Martinez, age 57, sued Honda Motor Co., Ltd. on a products liability theory claiming to have been paralyzed in a rollover accident in 2010. He claimed that Acura Integra that the seat belt in the vehicle that he was driving was defective and unreasonably dangerous in the it was not designed to prevent his head from hitting the roof of the car during the rollover accident that occurred when a tire blew out while he was driving to work.

Honda denied that the vehicle was defective.

Plaintiff sought past and future medical expenses, lost income damages, pain and suffering damages and loss of consortium damages.

Some of Judge Rau's court notes from the Court's Docket:

43-14061443 MOTION IN LIMINE AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE PREVIOUSLY UNDISCLOSED EXPERT OPINIONS AND EVIDENCE (FILED ON BEHALF OF HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD.)

87-14060087 IT IS ORDERED PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE THE POLICE ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION TESTIMONY AND ASSOCIATED EXHIBITS AND ARGUMENT IS GRANTED BY AGREEMENT. THE PRESENT ORDER DOES NOT PRECLUDE DEFENDANT FROM INTRODUCING POLICE OFFICER TESTIMONY REGARD ING PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND DATA GATHERED WITH RESPECT TO THE INVESTIGATION OF THE ACCIDENT. ...BY THE COURT; ROBINS-NEW, J. 6-13-14

91-14060091 IT IS ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE ANY EVIDENCE THAT CARLOS MARTINEZ FELL ASLEEP BEHIND THE WHEEL AND/OR WAS FATIGUED AT THE TIME OF THE CRASH IS GRANTED BY AGREEMENT. ...BY THE COURT; ROBINS-NEW, J. 6-13-14

93-14060093 IT IS ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE LIABILITY STATISTICAL EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT IS DENIED. ...BY THE COURT; ROBINS-NEW, J. 6-13-14

99-14060099 IT IS ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE POST MANUFACTURE DESIGN AND DESIGN CHANGES IS DENIED. THE PARTIES MAY PROPSE APPROPRIATE LIMITING INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING THE USE OF THIS EVIDENCE. ...BY THE COURT; ROBINS-NEW, J. 6-13-14

15-14060115 IT ISORDERED THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE CERTAIN OPINIONS OF BRIAN BENDA, PH.D. IS DENIED. ...BY THE COURT; ROBINS-NEW, J. 6-13-14

12-14060112 IT IS ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE LEARNED TREATISES FROM BEING ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE IS DENIED. A PARTY'S USE OF LEARNED TREATISES WILL BE GOVERNED APPROPRIATELY BY THE RULES OF EVIDENCE. ...BY THE COURT; ROBINS-NEW, J. 6-13-14

13-14060113 IT ISORDERED THAT PLAITNIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE THE POLICE REPORT AND POLICE CITATION IS GRANTED BY AGREEMENT. ...BY THE COURT; ROBINS-NEW, J. 6-13-14

01-14060101 IT IS ORDERED THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE "PREVIOUSLY UNDISCLOSED EVIDENCE: IS DENIED AS MOOT INSOFAR AS PLAINTIFFS PRESENTING ROOF DEFECT OPINIONS FROM THEIR EXPERTS REGARDING THE 1999 ACURA INTEGRA, AND IS, IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, DENIED. ...BY THE COURT; ROBINS-NEW, J. 6-13-14

95-14060095 IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 1. DEFENDANT'S REQUEST THAT MR. GILBERT BE PRECLUDED FROM OFFERING TESTIMONY INSOFAR AS THE "REASONABLENESS" OF PLAINTIFF CARLOS MARTINEZ' ACTIONS IS DENIED AS MOOT. 2. DEFENDANT'S REQUEST THAT MR. GILBERT BE PRECLUDED FROM REFERENCING DRIVER RESPONSE STUDIES IS DENIED. 3. DEFENDANT'S REQUEST THAT MR. GILBERT BE PRECLUDED FROM REFERENCING REEAR TREAD SEPARATION TESTING IS DENIED. THE PARTIES MY PROPOSE APPROPRIATE LIMITING INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING THE PURPOSE OF THIS TESTIMONY. ...BY THE COURT; ROBINS-NEW, J. 6-13-14

94-14060094 IT IS ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE CUMULATIVE BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING EXPERT TESTIMONY IS DENIED AS A PRETRIAL MOTION. THE PARTIES MAY RAISE CLAIMS REGARDING CUMULATIVE TESTIMONY WHEN APPROPRIATE DURING TRIAL. ...BY THE COURT; ROBINS-NEW, J. 6-13-14

14-14060114 UPON CONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE CERTAIN OPINIONS OF LARRY SICHER, AND PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION THERETO, IT IS ORDERED, AS FOLLOWS: 1. DEFENDANT'S REQUEST THAT MR. SICHER BE PRECLUDED FROM OFFERING TESTIMONY THAT THE 1999 ACURA INTEGRA DID NOT CONTAIN A ROLLOWVER SENSING DIVICE AND/OR SIDE AIR CURTAIN/CONOPY AIRBAG SYSTEM IS DENIED AS MOOT. PLAINTIFFS HAVE REPRESENTED THAT MR. SICHER WILL NOT ADDRESS ON HIS DIRECT EXAMINATION ROLLOVER SENSING DEVICES AND/OR SIDE AIR CURTAIN/CANOPY AIRBAG SYSTEMS. 2. DEFENDANT'S REQUEST THAT MR. SICHER BE PRECLUDED FROM REFERENCING "1G" INVERSION TESTING IS DENIED. 3. DEFENDANT'S REQUEST THAT MR. SICHER NOT TESTIFY ABOUT THE PREVENTION OF PLAINTIFF CARLOS MARTINEZ' CERVICAL INJURIES VIA PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED ATERNATIVE DESIGN IS DENIED AS MOOT. PLAINTIFFS' HAVE REPRESENTED THAT ALTHOUGH MR. SICHER WILL TESTIFY THAT THE ALTERNATIVE PROPSED DESIGN WOULD HAVE PREVENTED MR. MARTINEZ FROM STRIKING HIS HEAD ON THE ROOF OF THE VEHICLE DURING THE CRASH SEQUENCE, HE WILL NOT TESTIFY ABOUT THE MACHANISM OF MR. MARTINEZ' INJURIES OR HOW THE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED DESIGN WOULD HAVE PREVENTED PLAINTIFF'S CERVICAL INJURIES WHICH AGAIN WILL BE ADDRESSED BY QUALIFIED EXPERTS. ...BY THE COURT; ROBINS-NEW, J. 6-13-14

98-14060098 IT IS ORDERED THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO "APPLY THE RESTATEMENT OF TORTS: PRODUCTS LIABILITY TO PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS AND TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF INDUSTRY STANDARDS" IS DENIED. ...BY THE COURT; ROBINS-NEW, J. 6-13-14

54-14062554 MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE CATHERINE FORD CORRIGAN, PH.D. FROM OFFERING ANY TESTIMONY REGARDING KYPHOSIS OR ANY OTHER UNDIAGNOSED MEDICAL CONDITION (FILED ON BEHALF OF ROSITA DE LOS SANTOS DE MARTINEZ AND CARLOS MARTINEZ)

Outcome: Plaintiff's verdict for $55.3 million.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: