X hits on this document





8 / 47

JURISDICTION The district court had diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff- appellant’s jurisdictional statement is not correct. Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Kentucky. Defendant-appellee American Honda Motor Co., Inc. is incorporated in and has its principal place of business in California; defendant-appellee Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc. is incorporated in and has its principal place of business in Ohio. The remaining defendants-appellees, Takata Corporation, Honda Motor Co., Ltd., and Honda R & D Co. Ltd., are incorporated in and have their principal place of business in Japan. Plaintiff’s claim exceeds $50,000. On March 5, 1998, judgment was entered against plaintiff. A notice of appeal was filed on March 25, 1998. Appellate jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a personal injury action arising out of a car accident. Plaintiff Clayton W. Clark alleged that the driver’s seat belt in his Honda Accord was defective because it became unlatched during the rollover accident, causing him to suffer serious injury. In response to the testimony of the only eyewitness to the accident, who recalled seeing the belt in its proper location across Clark’s lap, and to the unequivocal testimony of defendants’ expert that Clark’s presence and position in the driver’s seat following the accident showed that the lap belt had not come unbuckled, plaintiff sought to create a genuine factual issue concerning whether the buckle had released by offering (1) the affidavit and deposition of an expert witness, and (2) the affidavit of a fact witness who had previously testified that she could not recall anything about the lap belt. The district court granted defendants’ motions to strike this evidence, explaining that the expert’s opinion was based on a wholly unreliable methodology and was otherwise inadmissible and that the fact witness’s affidavit “clearly contradict[ed]” her prior sworn testimony. It then granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that Clark had

Document info
Document views91
Page views91
Page last viewedTue Oct 25 05:00:35 UTC 2016