Elizabeth Zick v. Paccar, Inc., No. 21-2898 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff was severely injured in a crash while he was driving a Peterbilt semi-truck. He sued the truck’s manufacturer, PACCAR, Inc. (PACCAR), alleging that the truck’s defective design caused his injuries. A jury returned a verdict in PACCAR’s favor. His estate appeals, arguing that the district court committed several evidentiary errors at trial.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held, 1.) Plaintiff's expert's second report was untimely under the discovery orders in the case, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding it; 2.) the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that plaintiff had failed to show the good cause required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) to modify the scheduling order after the court declared a mistrial; 3.) Plaintiff failed to preserve his challenge to Defendant's "state-of-the-art" defense.
Applying plain error review to Plaintiff's challenge to Defendant's "state-of-the-art" defense, the court held the district court did not plainly err in admitting the testimony as the witnesses were testifying based on their extensive industry experience, and noted that Iowa law permits industry custom as evidence of the state of the art.
Court Description: [Wollman, Author, with Colloton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Products liability. Plaintiff's expert's second report was untimely under the discovery orders in the case, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding it from plaintiff's case-in-chief or in admitting the written and photographic contents of the report on rebuttal, or by excluding the report's videos from the entire case; the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that plaintiff had failed to show the good cause required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) to modify the scheduling order after the court declared a mistrial; plaintiff failed to object to admission of testimony regarding defendant's "state-of-the-art" defense, and did not preserve the issue for appeal; considering the claim under the plain error standard, the district court did not plainly err in admitting the testimony as the witnesses were testifying based on their extensive industry experience, and Iowa law permits industry custom as evidence of the state of the art; even assuming the district court erred in admitting testimony on what plaintiff claims were irrelevant industry standards, the evidence was unlikely to have had more than a slight influence on the verdict. [ August 25, 2022 ]
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.