Rodgers v. American Honda Motor, 1st Cir. (1995)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsRodgers v. American Honda Motor, 1st Cir. (1995)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUSCA1 Opinion
March 10, 1995
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 94-1556
DEBRA A. RODGERS, INDIVIDUALLY,
AND BARRY BROWN AND DEBRA A. RODGERS
IN THEIR CAPACITY AS CO-GUARDIANS OF
BRIAN RODGERS, AN INCOMPETENT PERSON,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant, Appellee.
_______________
ERRATA SHEET
ERRATA SHEET
The opinion of this Court
1995, is amended as follows:
1.
The first line listing
corrected to read as follows:
Andrey L. Frey, orally;
_______________
A. Bowman, . . .
_________
issued on
January 31,
appellee counsel
is
Wayne D. Struble, Richard
________________ _______
2. The last three sentences of the first paragraph
of the opinion are struck.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-1556
DEBRA A. RODGERS, INDIVIDUALLY,
AND BARRY BROWN AND DEBRA A. RODGERS
IN THEIR CAPACITY AS CO-GUARDIANS OF
BRIAN RODGERS, AN INCOMPETENT PERSON,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
_____________
____________________
John C. Cabaniss with whom Cunningham, Lyons & Cabaniss, S.C.
________________
___________________________________
on brief for appellants.
Andrew L. Frey, orally; Wayne D. Struble, Richard A. Bowm
_______________
__________________
________________
Timothy J. Mattson, Bowman and Brooke, Peter W. Culley, David
____________________ __________________
________________
_____
Barry, and Price, Atwood, Scribner, Allen, Smith & Lancaster were
_____
__________________________________________________
brief for appellee.
____________________
January 31, 1995
____________________
-3-
ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge.
_____________________
with
the
growing
contributory
concern
negligence,
over the
the
statute
permitting recovery,
where a
plaintiff, though
defendant.
there
Me.
were
a variety
Legislature
A.2d 491,
Rev. Stat.
of
fatal
in line
consequence
Maine Legislature
enacted
but reduced damages,
of
a
in cases
negligent, was
less so
than the
Ann. tit. 14,
156.
Although
state
chose the English
497 (Me.
In 1965,
statutes
one, see
___
1973), essentially
in
effect,
Wing v.
____
word
the
Morse, 300
_____
for word,
see
___
Comparative Negligence:
Some New Problems for the Maine
_____________________________________________________________
Courts, 18 Me. L. Rev. 65, 76 (1966).
______
The statute is unique,
and we are not to look for enlightment to decisions in sister
states.
The
facts
experienced ATV (all
without his helmet
are
simple.
terrain vehicle)
at a
Brian
Rodgers,
rider, found
popular Maine spot
where a
an
himself
friend
with
a three wheel
repairs
having been
It flipped and he
injuries.
ATV asked him
to help repair
made, plaintiff1
gave it a
it.
Some
trial run.
struck his head, receiving brain-crippling
On his motion, liability was tried first, and the
jury's answers
to special
defendant's favor.
We will deal with it
questions terminated the
case in
Plaintiff has one basic claim on
appeal.
rather than with defendant's contention
____________________
1. Strictly, Rodgers is now incompetent and plaintiffs are
his guardians. They are joined by his wife, individually.
We will speak in terms, however, of Rodgers as plaintiff.
-4-
that judgment in its favor would have been proper even if the
evidence plaintiff objected to had been excluded.
For
the
liability
trial,
by
motion
in limine,
plaintiff sought an order excluding testimony that he had not
been
wearing
defendant had
a helmet.
This
was of
uncontradicted expert
helmet, plaintiff's injuries
importance
testimony that,
would have been
Plaintiff's position was that, however much the
because
with a
insignificant.
absence of a
helmet may have added to the damages, it was not a fault that
caused
the
accident,
and
that
under
the
Maine
statute
comparative fault for the accident itself was the determining
factor.
The
subsequently
court ruled
admitted.
otherwise, and
This was
the evidence
crucial
because
was
unless
plaintiff's fault was less than
defendant's he was barred by
the statute from
fault was to be
weighing
recovery.
responsibility for
If
damages, as
measured by
distinguished from
for the event, on the uncontradicted evidence, it being clear
that plaintiff knew
it was best to wear a
helmet, he had no
case.
Analysis of the statute persuades us that the court
was correct.
It provides, in relevant part,
Where any person suffers death or
damage as a result partly of his own
fault and partly of the fault of any
other person or persons, a claim in
respect of that death or damage shall not
be defeated by reason of the fault of the
person suffering the damage, but the
damages recoverable in respect thereof
-5-
shall be reduced to such extent as the
jury thinks just and equitable having
regard to the claimant's share in the
responsibility for the damage.
Where damages are recoverable by any
person by virtue of this section, subject
to such reduction as is mentioned, the
court shall instruct the jury to find and
record the total damages which would have
been recoverable if the claimant had not
been at fault, and further instruct the
jury to reduce the total damages by
dollars and cents, and not by percentage,
to the extent deemed just and equitable,
having regard to the claimant's share in
the responsibility for the damages, and
instruct the jury to return both amounts
with the knowledge that the lesser figure
is the final verdict in the case.
Fault means negligence, breach of
statutory duty or other act or omission
which gives rise to a liability in tort
or would, apart from this section, give
rise to the defense
of contributory
negligence.
If such claimant is found by the
jury to be equally at fault, the claimant
shall not recover.
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 14,
This
Wisconsin
is
lengthy
statute.
See,
___
e.g.,
____
the
statute the court quoted in Wing, 300 A.2d at 498.
____
The
first consideration that
the
final, all-important
sensitivity of
shall "not
156.
struck us was
cut-off paragraph
the language preceding it.
[be] by
the rigidity of
percentage, [but]
as against
Damage reduction
to the
extent deemed
just and equitable, having regard to the claimant's
the responsibility for
the
share in
the damages," but then the blunt cut-
-6-
off,
"If claimant
fault."
is
found by
the jury
to be
equally at
The change in tone was apparently felt by the Maine
court as well.
It observed, "This paragraph was not found in
the original draft of the Bill considered by the
Legislature
and is quite obviously the result of a political compromise."
Striking "at
damage
fault," and
sustained,"
the
substituting "responsible
court proceeded
to
for the
interpret
the
paragraph as saying,
If in the apportionment process such
claimant is found by the jury to be
equally
responsible
for the
damage
sustained or more responsible for the
damage sustained than the defendant, the
claimant shall not recover.
Wing, 300 A.2d at 501.
____
With the uncontradicted
failure to wear a helmet was
evidence that
plaintiff's
responsible for essentially all
the damage sustained, this reading of the statute is fatal to
his case.
The Wing decision itself
____
is distinguishable, but
its
language is
an answer to
all plaintiffs'
claims, writ
large; the helmet evidence was admissible on liability.
Affirmed.
________
-7-
