152507P.pdf   08/11/2017  Jassmine D. Adams  v.  Toyota Motor Corporation
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-2507
                          and No:  15-2511
                          and No:  15-2516
                          and No:  15-2635
                          and No:  15-2636
                          and No:  15-2637
                          and No:  15-2638
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Kelly, Author, with Loken and Murphy, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Products liability. In products liability claiming plaintiffs 
   were injured through unintended acceleration of plaintiff Lee's Toyota 
   Camry, the jury found Lee was 40% responsible for the collision and 
   assessed Toyota's fault at 60%. The district court did not abuse its 
   discretion in admitting evidence of "other similar incidents" of 
   unintended acceleration as the circumstances surrounding each incident and 
   this incident were similar in several important respects, and the district 
   court, which expressed a keen awareness of the problems associated with 
   such evidence, was in the best position to determine whether this evidence 
   would be unduly distracting to the jurors; the district court did not 
   abuse its discretion in admitting testimony by plaintiff's expert, a 
   mechanical engineer and experienced product designer for other auto 
   manufacturers; plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence from which a jury 
   could find that the 1996 Camry contained a design defect in its throttle 
   mechanism and that his defect was a substantial factor in creating the 
   harm; the jury heard evidence from both sides' experts regarding the cause 
   of the accident, and while Toyota disagrees with plaintiff's version of 
   the cause, questions of conflicting evidence must be left to the jury's 
   determination, and this court will not reweigh the evidence; the district 
   court erred in granting prejudgment pursuant to Minn. Stat. Ann. Section 
   549.09 on plaintiff Bridgette Trice's damage award; on Trice's 
   cross-appeal, the district court erred in offsetting her damage award to 
   account for a prior settlement she entered into with plaintiff Lee and his 
   insurer as she received those damages as guardian on behalf of her minor 
   daughter who was injured in the accident and was still living at the time 
   of the settlement; her damage award here was received as the wrongful 
   death trustee and personal representative of a decedent's next of kin; 
   allowing the deceased child's next of kin to recover the full amount of 
   the jury award is not inequitable because the child recovered for her own 
   injuries while she was living. 
  
152507P.pdf   06/09/2017  Jassmine D. Adams  v.  Toyota Motor Corporation
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-2507
                          and No:  15-2511
                          and No:  15-2636
                          and No:  15-2637
                          and No:  15-2516
                          and No:  15-2638
                          and No:  15-2635
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Kelly, Author, with Loken and Murphy, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Products Liability. In action involving unintended 
   acceleration in Toyota Camrys, the district court carefully weighed the 
   admission of other similar incident evidence and did not abuse its 
   discretion in admitting a limited number of substantially similar 
   incidents; argument that the district court erred in allowing plaintiffs' 
   expert to give his opinion regarding the cause of the unintended 
   acceleration rejected as this testing supported his theory of the defect 
   and the evidence he relied on was sufficient to support the theory; 
   plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could find that 
   the 1996 Camry contained a design defect which was the proximate cause of 
   the accidents at issue; taking into account the plain language of Minn. 
   Stat. Ann. Section 549.09 regarding prejudgment interest, lower state 
   court decisions and the purpose of the statute, the court predicts that 
   the Minnesota Supreme Court would conclude that prejudgment interest is 
   not available for judgments that encompass multiple types of interest - 
   some of which are subject to interest under the statute and some of which 
   are not - when it is impossible to differentiate between the types of 
   damages included in the judgment, and the district court erred in awarding 
   prejudgment interest; with respect to plaintiff Trice's cross-appeal, the 
   district court erred in reducing her wrongful death damages award by the 
   amount her decedent recovered from the driver of the other vehicle and his 
   insurers.