|
No. 133686
| Raquel Rodriguez, |
|
Heather A. Jefferson |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Pacific Employers Insurance, |
|
Martin L. Critchell |
Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Wayne - Curtis, D.) |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| A.S.E. Industries, Inc., |
|
Rosalind H. Rochkind |
Defendant-Cross-Plaintiff-Appellant, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| American Axle & Manufacturing Holdings, Inc., |
|
|
| and American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc., |
|
|
Defendants-Cross-Defendants, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Design Systems, Inc., Innovative Engineering, Inc., |
|
|
| and Pmi Management Group, Inc. |
|
|
| Defendants. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Cross-Plaintiff-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Michigan Defense Trial Counsel, Inc.'s Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Manufacturers Association's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
Raquel Rodriguez, an American Axle employee, was severely injured in 1998 when her hair was caught in a machine roller of a machine while she was inspecting parts. She sued A.S.E. Industries, which manufactured and installed the machine. After a lengthy trial, the jury awarded Rodriguez over $10 million. The jury determined that A.S.E. Industries was 30 percent at fault, and that American Axle – which was not a party to the lawsuit – was 70 percent at fault. The jury also found that A.S.E. Industries was not grossly negligent. In post-trial proceedings, A.S.E. Industries argued that, because the jury found that the company was not grossly negligent, the trial court was obligated to apply the statutory cap on non-economic damages for products liability awards. Rodriguez argued that the statutory cap should not apply. MCL 600.2946a(3) provides that the non-economic damage cap does not apply “if the trier of fact determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the death or loss was the result of the defendant’s gross negligence, or if the court finds that the matters stated in section 2949a are true.” MCL 600.2949a states that the product liability non-economic damage cap does not apply if “if the court determines that at the time of manufacture or distribution the defendant had actual knowledge that the product was defective and that there was a substantial likelihood that the defect would cause the injury that is the basis of the action, and the defendant willfully disregarded that knowledge . . . .” MCL 600.2946a allowed the trial court to make its own factual findings independent of the jury’s verdict, Rodriguez contended. The trial court agreed and independently determined that A.S.E. Industries knew of the defect in the machine, that A.S.E. Industries willfully disregarded that knowledge, and that the injury was likely to occur. Accordingly, the trial court refused to apply the damages cap. The trial court also concluded that, even if the damages cap applied, the apportionment of non-party fault is applied to the verdict before the cap. Ultimately, the trial court entered judgment against A.S.E. Industries for $1.83 million. In a published opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, concluding that a trial court may make factual findings inconsistent with the jury’s findings, and may independently determine that the non-economic damages cap does not apply. The Court of Appeals did not reach the issue of whether the trial court properly applied the non-party fault percentage. A.S.E. Industries appeals.
Top of Page
|
