Melissa Hodson, the third EMT, could “only * * * positively recall” that the shoulder belt was in place. NR 47:Tab 8 at 11. She could not “personally recall
unlatching remember, don’t recall
[Clark’s] lap belt.” Id. at 29.
Likewise, when asked “[w]hat do you
if anything, about the lap belt” she answered: actually cutting it or removing it.” Id. at 11-12
“I don’t recall anything. I (emphasis added). She also
agreed, in response to a question, that belt had she done so. Id. at 12. She might have released the belt. Id. at 29.
she would have remembered unbuckling the lap could not rule out that others, such as Duncan, Hodson also testified that when she arrived at the
vehicle she was equipped only with a “little pen light * * * and it was hard what was going on,” and that her “focus of attention” throughout the assisting Clark was on his “possible neck injury.” Id. at 25, 29.
to actually see time she was
The Proceedings Below
Clark filed this action under the Kentucky Products Liability Act, KRS § 411.300,
et seq. and KRS § 411.182, against Takata Corporation, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Honda Motor Co., Ltd., Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc., and Honda R & D Co. Ltd. (collectively “defendants”). NR 1; NR 87:23-24. He asserted tort claims of negligence and strict liability. NR 1.3/ According to Clark’s complaint, the “seat belt latching mechanism * * * failed and such failure caused plaintiff to become unrestrained
and strike his head on the interior of the automobile * * * .” NR 1 (¶ 10).
Because Clark had produced no evidence that the lap belt failed to restrain
him during the collision, defendants moved for summary judgment. NR 44. There was no dispute that the shoulder belt was in place after the accident, or that Clark was wearing the lap belt at the time the accident occurred. And the only person who recalled
3/ Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation,the district court dismissed claims based on express or implied warranty. NR 87:1 n.1.