Jaramillo

Jaramillo v. Ford Motor Co.

Good Law
116 F. App'x 76
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 21, 2004No. 03-35326California1,678 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Ken, Riley, and Sawyer Jaramillo appeal the district court’s final judgment in favor of the defendant Ford Motor Company. The Jaramillos sued Ford alleging that the company had defectively designed their Ford Explorer that rolled over when Angela Jaramillo, Ken’s wife and Riley and Sawyer’s mother, swerved to avoid a deer. The rollover accident resulted in the deaths of Angela and McKenna Jaramillo, Angela and Ken’s youngest daughter, and injury to Ken, Riley, and Sawyer. After a sixteen-day trial, the jury returned a defense verdict. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse and remand.

The Jaramillos’ theory was that the Explorer was not reasonably safe as designed because the vehicle had a high center of gravity and a narrow wheel base that caused it to roll over on smooth, dry pavement. The Jaramillos contend that the district court erred by admitting over the Jaramillos’ objection comparative accident statistics that involved rollover accidents not just on smooth, dry pavement, but of all types. The district court admitted this evidence because the court determined the plaintiffs had opened the door by introducing similar evidence.

We review…

Dissenting Opinion

Noonan, J.

dissenting.

“Invited error occurs when the appellant opens the door to objectionable testimony by introducing it, rather than waiting for the appellee to do so.” Mukhtar v. Cal. State Univ., Hayward, 299 F.3d 1053 , 1065 n. 6 (9th Cir.2002)(en banc), amended by 319 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir.2003). The district court held that the plaintiffs had opened the door to comparative risk evidence. We may only overturn this ruling if there is an abuse of discretion. McEuin v. Crown Equip. Corp., 328 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir.2003). Such abuse is not present here.

The Jaramillos admitted into evidence a videotaped deposition by Robert Pascarella, a Ford Design Analysis Engineer. During that deposition, Pascarella was questioned about an August 15, 1973 report Ford sent to the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration. Throughout examination, the Jaramillos repeatedly drew attention to the report’s documentation of the different rollover standards for sport utility vehicles and other automobile models. Counsel high *80 lighted passages of the report including “overall, light truck rollovers are two to four times the car rate” and “injury rates in a rollover are at least double the rates…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.