Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01015/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01015-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 355
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Cause of Action: 

---

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals -r,..~th r;rrn;t 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAR 2 7 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

WILLIAM R. PATTEN, Administrator 

of the Estate of John H. Patten; 

JANE M. PATTEN , 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, ) 

CHEVROLET MOTOR DIVISION, a Delaware ) 

Corporation; and MARK III INDUSTRIES, ) 

INC., a Florida Corporation, ) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 88-1015 

(D.C. No. CIV-85-679-R) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Before*¥0GAN and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and THEIS, District 

Judge. 

William R. Patten and Jane M. Patten appeal from a jury 

verdict entered in favor of appellees General Motors Corporation 

and Mark III Industries. This diversity case, governed by 

Oklahoma law, involves the death of John H. Patten, who was killed 

in an automobile accident. The deceased was a passenger in a van 

which slid from an icy Colorado road and overturned several times 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value art~ shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** The Honorable Frank G. Theis, District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 88-1015 Document: 01019966713 Date Filed: 03/27/1990 Page: 1 
after it progressed down a decline. The deceased was ejected from 

the van and died from the resulting injuries. William Patten, 

administrator of the estate of the decedent, brought suit against 

the appellees, alleging liability for wrongful death under a 

theory of product liability. Jane Patten, widow of the decedent, 

alleged emotional distress caused by witnessing the death of her 

husband. 

Appellants argue that in the absence of a general verdict, 

the trial court improperly entered judgment on the basis of 

answers to special interrogatories. We disagree. The jury 

entered a verdict in favor of the defendants on the wrongful death 

claim, but failed to return a verdict on the claim of infliction 

of emotional distress. At trial both the court and the parties 

did not recognize that the jury had failed to return a verdict on 

the emotional distress claim. After subsequently noticing the 

failure, the trial court entered judgment in favor of appellees on 

the emotional distress claim. The lower court noted that, 

pursuant to Jury Instruction No. 30 (to which the appellants made 

no objection), the emotional distress claim was dependent on the 

administrator's successful recovery of the estate's wrongful death 

claim against either GM or Mark III. We agree. Because the jury 

had entered a verdict in favor of GM and Mark III on the wrongful 

death claim, the emotional distress claim could not survive. The 

court acted pursuant to its duty to conform the verdict to the 

"real intent of the jury." Burkett v. Moran, 410 P.2d 876, 878 

(Okl. 1965). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-1015 Document: 01019966713 Date Filed: 03/27/1990 Page: 2 
Appellants next argue that the trial court erred by: 

admitting evidence of how the accident began; admitting an 

allegedly hearsay statement of Jane Patten; and not admitting 

evidence of the prior felony conviction of a defense witness. We 

review a district court's decision to admit evidence for an abuse 

of discretion. United States v. Alexander, 849 F.2d 1293, 1301 

(10th Cir. 1988). 

We first hold that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in admitting evidence of how the accident began. See 

Lee~ Volkswagen of America, Inc., 688 P.2d 1283, 1289 (Okl. 

1984) (stating that in a products liability case investigating the 

crashworthiness of an automobile, the burden shifted to the 

defendant manufacturer to show that the "plaintiff's single injury 

was solely the result of [a third party's] negligence and not 

attributable to the manufacturer's defective product.") The trial 

court acted reasonably in permitting the defendant to introduce 

evidence that a third party's negligence was the sole cause of the 

deceased's chest being crushed, resulting in his death. 

We further hold that Jane Patten's statement that her husband 

was not wearing his seat belt was admissible against her as an 

admission of a party opponent. The trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in admitting the same statement against William Patten 

under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(24). 

Appellants -final evidentiary argument is that the trial judge 

incorrectly invoked Rule 403 to bar evidence of a prior felony 

conviction of a witness for the defendants. We agree with 

appellants, see Green v. Block Laundry Machine Co., U.S. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 88-1015 Document: 01019966713 Date Filed: 03/27/1990 Page: 3 
, 109 S. Ct. 1981 (1989), but hold that the error was 

harmless, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 61. The defendant's 1980 battery 

conviction was simply not very probative of his alleged inability 

to recall accurately the accident. 

Appellants final argument is that the trial court erred in 

instructing the jury that any damages awarded would not be taxable 

income. Once again, we agree with appellants. See Hansen v. 

Johns-Manville Products Corp., 734 F.2d 1036, 1045 (5th Cir. 1984) 

(federal diversity courts must follow state law in drafting jury 

instructions), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1051 (1985); Chicago, Rock 

Island & Pacific Railroad Co.~ Kinsey, 372 P.2d 863, 867 (Okla. 

1962) (jury should not consider whether damages are subject to 

income tax). However, because the jury found for defendants and 

did not award damages, the error was harmless. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 61. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

-4-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-1015 Document: 01019966713 Date Filed: 03/27/1990 Page: 4