Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02685/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02685-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
General Motors Corporation
Appellee
Pauline W. Kitts
Appellant

Document Text:

FILED 

U{litc:d Scares Courc of Appeals 

Temh Cim.ii: 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

M.l\R 2 't 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

PAULINE w. KITTS, as Personal 

Representative of the Estate of 

WILLARD F. KITTS, Deceased. 

v. 

Plaintiff-Appellant/ 

Cross-Appellee, 

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, 

Defendant-Appellee/ 

Cross-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

r 1 '.., ! erk • 

No. 88-2685 

88-2783 

(D.C. No. CIV-85-0967) 

(D. N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before*~OGAN and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and THEIS, District 

Judge. · 

Pauline Kitts, representative of the estate of the deceased 

Willard F. Kitts, appeals a judgment entered in favor of General 

Motors Corporation. The decedent died as a result of injuries 

sustained when his 1982 Pontiac J-2000, manufactured by General 

Motors, went off the road, over an embankment, and hit a concrete 

culvert. Pauline Kitts filed a wrongful death suit against 

General Motors under theories of negligence and strict liability. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and 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: 88-2685 Document: 01019966707 Date Filed: 03/27/1990 Page: 1 
Kitts argued, inter alia, that the decedent's injuries were caused 

by the defendant's defectively designed seatbelt, which 

incorporated a "comfort feature," which permitted extensive slack 

in the shoulder harness. Kitts alleged that this slack allowed 

extensive forces to be applied against the decedent's chest, 

resulting in his death. The jury returned a verdict in favor of 

Kitts on the claim that General Motors had negligently designed 

the shoulder belt, but found in favor of General Motors on the 

issue of proximate cause. Kitts argues on appeal that the trial 

court erred in barring the admission into evidence of a computer 

simulation of the accident, which purported to show the proximate 

cause of death. 

We review a district court's decision to admit or deny 

evidence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Alexander, 

8 4 9 F . 2 d 12 9 3 , · 13 0 1 ( 1 0th Ci r . -19 8 8 ) . In Jackson ~ F 1 etcher , 6 4 7 

F.2d 1020 (10th Cir. 1981), we stated that experimental data 

should be received with caution: "In many instances, a slight 

change in the conditions under which the experiment is made will 

so -distort the result as to wholly destroy its value as evidence, 

and make it harmful, rather than helpful." Id. at 1027. Citing 

Jackson, the trial judge found that the computer simulation was 

not sufficiently similar to the actual crash to justify admission. 

We agree. When running the computer simulation, Kitts' expert 

assu~ed that the decedent was not slouching and that the 

decedent's car hit the concrete barrier at an angle perpendicular 

to the face of the barrier. General Motors introduced evidence, 

upon which the trial court relied, suggesting that the actual 

Appellate Case: 88-2685 Document: 01019966707 Date Filed: 03/27/1990 Page: 2 
conditions were significantly different. We hold that the trial 

court reasonably excluded the computer simulation on the basis 

that Kitts failed to show that the simulation adequately relied on 

conditions similar to the actual conditions. 

We do not reach and express no opinion on General Motors' 

cross-appeal. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 1 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

1 We also grant appellant's motion to supplement the record with 

"Animated Evidence: Delta 191 Crash Re-created Through Computer 

Simulations at Trial," ABA Journal 52, 52-56 (Dec. 1989). 

Appellate Case: 88-2685 Document: 01019966707 Date Filed: 03/27/1990 Page: 3