Motion in Limine - United States District Court

Case 1:06-cv-22644-ASG Document 364 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2008 Page 6 of 45
not have otherwise occurred as a result of the original collision.
D’Amario v. Ford Motor Co., 806 So.2d 424, 426 (Fla. 2002) (internal quotations omitted).
Nearly twenty years after adopting the doctrine, the Florida Supreme Court addressed the
issue of whether principles of comparative fault concerning the initial accident apply in
crashworthiness cases. Id.
In D’Amario, the Florida Supreme Court acknowledged that there is a national split
as to the issue of whether comparative negligence is an available defense in
crashworthiness cases. Id. at 431-34. The majority view holds that “the fault of the plaintiff
or a third party in causing the initial accident is recognized as a defense to a
crashworthiness case against a product manufacturer.” Id. at 432. The court explained
that the “majority view is based on the belief that the fault of the defendant and of the
plaintiff should be compared with each other with respect to all the damages and injuries
for which the conduct of each party is a cause in fact and a proximate cause.” Id. (quoting
Whitehead v. Toyota Motor Corp., 897 S.W.2d 684 (Tenn. 1995)).
On the other hand, the “minority view” rejects the “the application of comparative
fault principles, [and] focuses on the underlying rationale for imposing liability against
automobile manufacturers for secondary injuries caused by a design defect.” Id. at 433
(citing Cota v. Harley Davidson, 141 Ariz. 7, 684 P.2d 888, 895-96 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984)
(holding that evidence of the plaintiff's intoxication and conduct in causing the initial
accident was not relevant in a crashworthiness case against a motorcycle manufacturer
based on a design defect in the motorcycle's gas tank system); Andrews v. Harley
Davidson, Inc., 106 Nev. 533, 796 P.2d 1092, 1095 (Nev. 1990) (holding that evidence of
6