Shaw et al v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., No. 2:2010cv00038 - Document 66 (E.D. La. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 16 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 43 Motion to Bifurcate. Signed by Judge A. J. McNamara on 12/17/2010. (caa, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Shaw et al v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc. Doc. 66 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA FRANKLIN G. SHAW, ET AL * CIVIL ACTION VERSUS * NO: 10-38 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. * SECTION: "D"(4) ORDER AND REASONS Before the court are the following motions: (1) “Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. No. 16) filed by Defendant, American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda); and (2) “Motion to Bifurcate” (Doc. No. 43) filed by Honda. Plaintiffs, Franklin Shaw and Sate Farm Fire and Casualty Company, filed a memoranda in opposition. The motions, set for hearing on Wednesday, December 15, 2010, are before the court on briefs, without oral argument. Now, having considered the memoranda of counsel, the record, and the applicable law, the court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Honda provided an adequate warning about the fire hazards associated with the exhaust system of the subject portable generator. Honda stated (in the owner’s Dockets.Justia.com manual of the subject generator) that “[t]he exhaust system gets hot enough to ignite some material” and instructed the user of the generator “[k]eep the generator at least 3 feet (1 meter) away from buildings and other equipment during operation.”1 Honda did not place such an instruction/warning on the generator itself, but Honda did affix a sticker to the generator that read: “Read Owner’s Manual Carefully Before Operation.” It is undisputed that Plaintiff Franklin Shaw read the manual some three years before the subject incident, and that on the day of the subject incident, he operated the generator less than four inches from the wood siding of his garage. The jury must make credibility decisions and decide, under the circumstances presented in this matter, whether the fire risk at issue was open and obvious, and in the absence of a warning on the generator itself, whether Honda provided an adequate warning in the owner’s manual. Accordingly; The court DENIES Honda’s “Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. No. 16). However, in the interests of judicial efficiency and economy, the court GRANTS Honda’s “Motion to Bifurcate” (Doc. No. 43). Liability will be tried first, and if needed, damages will be tried 1 See Owner’s Manual, Honda’s Ex. C at p. 7 2 thereafter. At this juncture, the court is undecided at to whether the damages trial, if needed, will immediately proceed with the same jury who decided liability, or whether the damages trial, if needed, will proceed at a later date with a different jury. However, for purposes of the Pre-Trial Order and Trial planning, the parties are to assume that, if needed, the same jury that decided liability will immediately thereafter decide damages. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 17th day of December, 2010. ______________________________ A.J. McNAMARA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
