Marcelino Perez-Hernandez v. Mitsubishi Motors, No. 06-10132 (11th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT December 19, 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK No. 06-10132 D. C. Docket No. 03-01269 CV-WSD-1 MARCELINO PEREZ-HERNANDEZ, JOAQUIN COELLO, as Next Friend of Myra Yeje, Nathaly Yeje, Dedrick Shemar Cash and Ana Vera, minor children of Angelica Urena, LIDIA AMADOR, Individually as surviving mother of Carlos Resendiz, her deceased son, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees, ALEJANDRO RUIZ, Appellant, versus MITSUBISHI MOTORS CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, MITSUBISHI MOTORS NORTH AMERICA, a foreign corporation, Defendants-Appellees Cross-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (December 19, 2006) Before DUBINA and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and HODGES,* District Judge. PER CURIAM: This is a tragic case involving the deaths of four people after a 1994 Mitsubishi Montero rolled over three times on Interstate 285 in Fulton County, Georgia. After a trial by jury, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Mitsubishi. Appellants seek to overturn the jury verdict and obtain a new trial based on two discretionary rulings made by the district court. First, regarding references to Mitsubishi s compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, even if we assumed error, it was harmless because of the district court s jury instructions. _______________________ *Honorable Wm. Terrell Hodges, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. 2 Second, we see no abuse of discretion in the district court s limitation of the scope of Gilbert s testimony on the rim gouge issue. At trial, appellants did not meet their burden of establishing the reliability of Gilbert s testimony on the rim gouge. Finally, we conclude from the record that the district court properly ruled on the removal of the Amador appellants case and the consolidation of the two actions. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment entered on the jury s verdict.1 AFFIRMED. 1 We also affirm the district court s ruling on Mitsubishi s cross-appeal. 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.
