IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-10487

TRACY PRICE,

Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.

TAKATA CORP., a Japanese Corporation; TK HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware

Corporation; and as Successor-in-Interest to TAKATA, INC., a Delaware

Corporation; TK HOLDINGS I, LLC, a Delaware Corporation; TAKATA

RESTRAINT SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; TAKATA SEAT

BELTS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; TAKATA USA CORP., a Delaware

Corporation; HONDA MOTOR COMPANY LTD, a Japanese Corporation;

HONDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD, a Japanese

Corporation; AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware

Corporation; HONDA OF AMERICA MANUFACTURING, INC., a Delaware

Corporation,

Defendants–Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:08-CV-151

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 29, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-10487 Document: 00511158568 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2010
No. 09-10487

A jury returned a verdict for defendants Honda Motor Company Ltd.

(Honda) and Takata Corp. (Takata) in a case arising from the injuries Tracy

Price sustained in a car accident. Price appeals with challenges to the district

court’s admission of evidence of her drug abuse. For the following reasons, we

affirm.

I

This case arises from a tragic, one-car accident that rendered Price

paraplegic. Price brought suit against Honda, the manufacturer of her car, and

Takata, the manufacturer of the seatbelt in her car. She alleged that Honda and

Takata were liable for her injuries because the seatbelt in her car was defective.

She contended that the seatbelt buckle was subject to partial engagement, such

that it seemed to latch when it actually did not latch. The case proceeded to trial

on her tort claims.

At trial, to show that Price was at fault for the car accident, Honda and

Takata introduced testimony that Price had a history of methamphetamine use

and that after the accident she was assessed a fine for drug paraphernalia found

in her car. They also introduced expert testimony that if Price had ceased her

use of methamphetamine two days before the accident, as she asserted, she

would have been experiencing withdrawal symptoms, including fatigue. The

jury returned a verdict for Honda and Takata, finding that Price was not

wearing her seatbelt at the time of the accident.

Price appeals and argues that the district court abused its discretion in

admitting the evidence of her methamphetamine use. She argues that the

evidence of her drug use is irrelevant since a jury is not allowed to consider a

plaintiff’s fault in a crashworthiness case. She also argues that even if the

evidence is marginally relevant, the district court should have excluded it since

the evidence’s probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of

unfair prejudice.

2

Case: 09-10487 Document: 00511158568 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2010
No. 09-10487

II

We review a district court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for abuse

of discretion. “A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is based on an

1

erroneous view of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.”

2

“If we find that an abuse of discretion has occurred, we then apply the harmless

error doctrine.” Thus, we will affirm the evidentiary ruling “unless the district

3

court abused its discretion and a substantial right of the complaining party was

affected.” “An error does not affect substantial rights if the court is sure, after

4

reviewing the entire record, that the error did not influence the jury or had but

a very slight effect on its verdict.”

5

On appeal, Price did not address whether the introduction of evidence of

her drug use was harmful. “As a general rule, a party waives any argument that

it fails to brief on appeal.” Price makes no arguments in her brief as to how the

6

allegedly erroneous evidentiary rulings affected the jury finding that she was not

wearing her seatbelt. She points to no moment in which Honda or Takata called

upon the jury to infer that her drug use affected her ability or likelihood to

buckle her seatbelt or suggested that her drug use diminished her right to

recover. Neither does she cite any instances in the record in which Honda or

Paz v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc., 555 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2009).

1

Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

2

Price v. Rosiek Constr. Co., 509 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation

3

marks and citation omitted). 

Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

4

Id. at 707-08 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

5

United States v. Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325, 346 (5th Cir. 2009), pet. for cert. filed, Nos.

6

09-1422, 09-11039 (May 24, 2010); No. 09-11067 (May 25, 2010) . 

3

Case: 09-10487 Document: 00511158568 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/29/2010
No. 09-10487

Takata attacked the credibility of her testimony because of her drug use.

Accordingly, because her brief does not adequately discuss how the evidence of

drug abuse affected the jury verdict, Price has waived any contention that this

error was harmful.

Even if we were to assume that Price did not waive this issue, any error

in admitting the evidence was harmless. A review of the entire record

demonstrates that the evidence of Price’s drug use had very slight, if any, effect

on the jury’s finding that the plaintiff was not wearing her seatbelt. The

question of whether Price was wearing her seatbelt turned on the testimony of

three Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) and Price. The EMTs, who each

arrived at the scene of the accident, testified that Price informed them that she

had not engaged her seatbelt. Price’s testimony did not directly refute these

statements. She testified that she always wears her seatbelt, but that she could

not remember what she told the EMTs. The evidence of Price’s drug use was

proffered not to discredit this testimony, but rather to show that she caused the

one-car accident. Further, the expert witness did not testify as to whether her

drug withdrawal affected her seatbelt use, and Honda and Takata made no

arguments that her drug use had any role in her failure to wear a seatbelt.

Thus, even if the evidence was improperly admitted, it did not alter the jury’s

verdict.

* * *

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

4

Case: 09-10487 Document: 00511158568 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/29/2010