Motion in Limine - United States District Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case 1:06-cv-22644-ASG Document 364 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2008 Page 44 of 45 warn), and even one case in which an appellate court determined that the jury had sufficient evidence to find a breach of the duty even where no evidence of other accidents was offered, because the manufacturer knew how its drilling machine was being used in the field and was therefore in a position to realize that such use might cause a serious accident, see Simon v. Am. Crescent Elevator Co., 767 So.2d 64, 74-75 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2000). Florida recognizes the duty, and there are at least three other substantially similar incidents which resulted in the exact injury suffered by Mr. Moncrieffe following an alleged foreseeable tipover. I now find that these circumstances are sufficient to let the jury decide whether the evidence is sufficient to support a post-sale duty to warn claim against Clark. IV. Order The Court, being duly advised in the premises, for the reasons discussed above and at the hearing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion Regarding Cause of Tipover [DE 242] is DENIED without prejudice. 2. Defendant’s Motion to Bar Testimony of Jeffrey Warren [DE 246] is DENIED. 3. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude OSHA File [DE 247] is GRANTED as to introduction of the evidence in Defendant’s case in chief. However, whether the statement attributed to Mr. Diaz may be admissible for impeachment will be determined at trial. 4. Defendant’s Motion to Preclude Other Accidents of Bobcat Compact Excavator X320 [DE 250] is GRANTED as to the accidents involving Rapich and Pritz, and DENIED as to the accidents involving Collins, Jones, and 44
Case 1:06-cv-22644-ASG Document 364 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2008 Page 45 of 45 Morgan. Nonetheless, I do not foreclose the possibility that Plaintiff may produce evidence at a later time to establish that the Rapich and Pritz accidents are substantially similar and are therefore admissible. 5. Defendant’s Motion Regarding ISO 3471 and ISO 12117 [DE 252] is DENIED. The issue of how the standards will be introduced will be discussed during the final pretrial conference, which has been scheduled for September 5, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. 6. Defendant’s Motion Regarding Post-Sale Duty to Warn [DE 261] is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 22nd day of July, 2008. cc: U.S. Magistrate Judge Chris M. McAliley Counsel of record 45 ____________________________ THE HONORABLE ALAN S. GOLD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 1 and 2: Case 1:06-cv-22644-ASG Document 364
Page 43: Case 1:06-cv-22644-ASG Document 364

Motion in Limine - United States District Court

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?