(1)Where plaintiffs brought a product liability action against manufacturers after a bus accident killed one and injured two due allegedly to brake failure, the trial court did not err in denying a motion for new trial based on intentional non-disclosure by a juror because the juror testified that he disclosed everything that he thought was responsive and there was no showing that he had a negative attitude toward the jury system.
(2)Where plaintiffs in a product liability action argued that the trial court erred in admitting excerpts from deposition testimony from experts after the plaintiffs withdrew the experts, the plaintiffs did not withdraw the experts until the fourth week of trial and the experts’ opinions were referred to by the plaintiffs throughout trial, so the court did not err in admitting the testimony.
(3)Where the defendants in a product liability action argued an adverse inference from the plaintiffs’ failure to call their two withdrawn experts, the trial court granted appropriate relief and properly refused to allow the plaintiffs to assert an untrue statement about the experts’ availability, and the trial court also did not err in excluding results of experimental brake testing and in admitting expert testimony on causation.
Judgment is affirmed.
Gleason v. Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems, LLC (MLW No. 67080/Case No. WD76704 – 45 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Witt, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Clay County, Chamberlain, J. (Gary C. Robb and Anita Porte Robb, Kansas City, Missouri, for appellants) (Douglas N. Ghertner and Stephen P. Horn, Kansas City, Missouri, and Robert T. Adams, Kansas City, Missouri, for respondents).
Read the full text of this opinion. (PDF)