Opinion ID: 1708200
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: kudlaceks' burden of proof

Text: The trial court granted a directed verdict after finding that plaintiffs' evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish a causal connection. Specifically, the trial court stated: [T]here is no evidence to show the actual extent of the enhanced injuries attributable to the alleged defect in the design of the occupant protectionprotective characteristics. Furthermore, that there is no evidence that had the plaintiffs' alternative design of occupant protective characteristics been on the vehicle, the injury outcome would have been any different. Using the substantial factor test, we find there was sufficient evidence to submit the issue of crashworthiness to the jury. As stated, in a court's review of a directed verdict, all controverted facts must be construed in favor of the party against whom the verdict was entered. Raben v. Dittenber, 230 Neb. 822, 434 N.W.2d 11 (1989). Dr. Trimble testified as to the causal relationship between the 18½-inch intrusion of the vehicle's passenger door and the injuries sustained by Kudlacek. According to Dr. Trimble's testimony, the implosion caused a blunt injury which affected multiple systems in Kudlacek's body. The injuries, such as those of the liver and spleen, caused a diminished blood flow to the brain and were a substantial contributing cause of Kudlacek's brain injury. Dr. Adwers lent support to Dr. Trimble's testimony. He testified that the cause of the ruptured spleen and the laceration on the dome on the right side of the liver was a direct trauma to the spleen or liver from the ribs. He explained that a rib is flexible enough to bend far back enough to tear the liver and spleen in the same manner in which Kudlacek's was torn. Dr. Adwers further explained that because there was no external puncture, he concluded that either a rib fracture or rib compression caused the injuries to the liver and spleen. Plaintiffs also offered the testimony of Copp, who testified as to the crashworthiness claim set forth by the plaintiffs. According to Copp's testimony, the Fiat X1/9 was unreasonably dangerous because the fiberglass roof, which served only as a wind or rain cover, resulted in excessive deformations in the passenger door. Copp also testified regarding an alternative design. However, as this court has abandoned this element as part of the plaintiff's burden of proving defective design, we do not discuss it.