Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 55 views

    Trull v. Volkswagen, 229 F.3d 343, 1st Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The plaintiffs appealed a jury verdict in favor of Volkswagen in a case involving injuries from a car accident. The plaintiffs argued that the jury instruction improperly placed the burden on them to prove the specific injuries caused by an alleged vehicle design defect, rather than requiring Volkswagen to apportion damages between the accident injuries and enhanced injuries. The First Circuit certified a question to the New Hampshire Supreme Court on where the burden lies. The state court determined that in cases of indivisible injuries, the plaintiff must prove the defect caused enhanced damages, after which the burden shifts to the defendant to apportion the injuries. As the jury instruction was erroneous, the First Circuit vacated the verdict and remanded the case for a new trial.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Trull v. Volkswagen, 229 F.3d 343, 1st Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    55 views3 pages
    The plaintiffs appealed a jury verdict in favor of Volkswagen in a case involving injuries from a car accident. The plaintiffs argued that the jury instruction improperly placed the burden on them to prove the specific injuries caused by an alleged vehicle design defect, rather than requiring Volkswagen to apportion damages between the accident injuries and enhanced injuries. The First Circuit certified a question to the New Hampshire Supreme Court on where the burden lies. The state court determined that in cases of indivisible injuries, the plaintiff must prove the defect caused enhanced damages, after which the burden shifts to the defendant to apportion the injuries. As the jury instruction was erroneous, the First Circuit vacated the verdict and remanded the case for a new trial.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-10-17 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 229 F.3d 343 Docket: 98-1812

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiffs appealed a jury verdict in favor of Volkswagen in a case involving injuries from a car accident. The plaintiffs argued that the jury instruction improperly placed the burden on them to prove the specific injuries caused by an alleged vehicle design defect, rather than requiring Volkswagen to apportion damages between the accident injuries and enhanced injuries. The First Circuit certified a question to the New Hampshire Supreme Court on where the burden lies. The state court determined that in cases of indivisible injuries, the plaintiff must prove the defect caused enhanced damages, after which the burden shifts to the defendant to apportion the injuries. As the jury instruction was erroneous, the First Circuit vacated the verdict and remanded the case for a new trial.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    55 views3 pages

    Trull v. Volkswagen, 229 F.3d 343, 1st Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The plaintiffs appealed a jury verdict in favor of Volkswagen in a case involving injuries from a car accident. The plaintiffs argued that the jury instruction improperly placed the burden on them to prove the specific injuries caused by an alleged vehicle design defect, rather than requiring Volkswagen to apportion damages between the accident injuries and enhanced injuries. The First Circuit certified a question to the New Hampshire Supreme Court on where the burden lies. The state court determined that in cases of indivisible injuries, the plaintiff must prove the defect caused enhanced damages, after which the burden shifts to the defendant to apportion the injuries. As the jury instruction was erroneous, the First Circuit vacated the verdict and remanded the case for a new trial.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 3

    229 F.3d 343 (1st Cir.

    2000)

    ELIZABETH TRULL, NATHANIEL TRULL, BY HIS


    FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND DAVID TRULL, DAVID
    TRULL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF
    THE ESTATE OF BENJAMIN TRULL, PLAINTIFFS,
    APPELLANTS,
    V.
    VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC., AND
    VOLKSWAGENWERK, A.G.,
    DEFENDANTS, APPELLEES.
    No. 98-1812

    United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit


    Heard May 6, 2000
    Decided October 17, 2000

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE


    DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., U.S.
    District Judge]
    David P. Angueira with whom Edward M. Swartz, Alan L. Cantor, and
    Lisa V. Kaprielian were on brief for appellants.
    Howard B. Myers with whom Bryan K. Gould was on brief for appellees.
    Before Selya, Circuit Judge, Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge, and Pollak,
    Senior District Judge.*
    Per curiam.

    Appellants sought damages from appellee Volkswagen for injuries arising out
    of a car accident in February 1991. In a previous decision, we resolved a
    number of evidentiary questions arising from the trial in this diversity case. See
    Trull v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 187 F.3d 88 (lst Cir. 1999). Appellants
    also challenged a jury instruction that required them to prove, in addition to
    causation, "`the nature and extent of the injuries that were enhanced'" as a result

    of a defect in the vehicle's design. Id. at 103. Appellants argued that once they
    demonstrated causation, the defendants bore the burden of apportioning
    damages because the enhanced injuries at issue were indivisible from the
    injuries that resulted from the underlying accident. The jury found for
    Volkswagen, and we reasoned that assignment of the burden "unquestionably
    may have been determinative" of the result. Id.
    2

    We noted that the question of who bears the burden in a so-called


    "crashworthiness" case involving indivisible injuries had divided courts across
    the country, and that the New Hampshire Supreme Court had not yet faced the
    question. Id. at 100. Concluding that placement of the burden was
    "quintessentially a policy judgment appropriately made for the state by its own
    courts," id. at 103, we retained jurisdiction and certified the following question
    to the New Hampshire Supreme Court:

    Under New Hampshire law, in a crashworthiness or enhanced injury case, does


    the plaintiff bear the burden of demonstrating the specific nature and extent of
    the injuries attributable to the manufacturer, or does the burden of
    apportionment fall on the defendant once the plaintiff has proved causation?

    Id.

    The New Hampshire Supreme Court has concluded that the burden falls on the
    defendant:

    In crashworthiness cases involving indivisible injuries, we conclude that the


    plaintiffs must prove that "a design defect was a substantial factor in producing
    damages over and above those which were probably caused as a result of the
    original impact or collision. Once the plaintiff[s] make[] that showing, the
    burden shifts to the defendant[s] to show which injuries were attributable to the
    initial collision and which to the defect." Trull, 187 F.3d at 101-02.

    Trull v. Volkswagen, 2000 WL 1425142, *4 (NH Sept. 28, 2000).

    Because the district court's instruction placed the burden on the plaintiffs, they
    are entitled to a new trial. We therefore vacate the judgment of the district court
    and remand the case for new proceedings consistent with both our prior
    decision and the New Hampshire Supreme Court's response to our certified
    question of law.

    The judgment of the district court is therefore vacated and remanded.

    The judgment of the district court is therefore vacated and remanded.

    Notes:
    *

    Of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

    You might also like