Opinion ID: 888872
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Test Failures

Text: ¶ 66 Evenflo and the Malcolms have engaged in semantic arguments throughout trial and on appeal regarding the difference between compliance with FMVSS 213 test standards and OMW failures that occurred during FMVSS 213 testing. The Malcolms use the word failure in an informal sense to describe cracks, rips, tears, and other malfunctions that they argue constitute a defect and evidence of an impending failure of the shell. Evenflo equates any mention of the word failure with a pass or fail of the official standards of FMVSS 213. ¶ 67 The Malcolms raised the issue of the OMW's test failures in their opening statement. The Malcolms referred to sled testing conducted by government agencies, Evenflo, and Consumer Reports that showed cracks on the OMW shell and a tendency for the belt hook to break under stress. The Malcolms claimed that the OMW had been tested 582 times, with 157 failures. Evenflo argued in chambers that the court should have allowed it to inform the jury that the testing agency that was running this test deemed the result a pass. The Malcolms responded that they were referring to cracks, rips, and tears ... failures in the shell, rather than any failure of the test standard as determined by any governmental agency. ¶ 68 The Malcolms' expert D'Aulerio testified that he had reviewed 582 tests performed on Evenflo OMW child seats. D'Aulerio found 157 tests where there was some kind of problem, either a fracture or a crack, or a break, in some instances a total complete fracture of the belt hook. ... It worked out to be, like, twenty-seven percent of the tests. The tests included the model 206, model 207, and prototypes of both models. D'Aulerio testified that the tests were a big huge red flag that indicated a defect in the OMW. Evenflo contends that [t]he jurors who heard that testimony could only have believed that the Model 207 regularly failed in testing. ¶ 69 The District Court also allowed the Malcolms to introduce into evidence as Exhibit 278-A D'Aulerio's 11-page test failures chart. See ¶ 25. The court denied Evenflo's motion to introduce the underlying test reports pursuant to the rule of completeness. Evenflo argues that Malcolms' opening and closing arguments served to ensure that the jury would gather from D'Aulerio's testimony and his `test failures' chart that Evenflo's Model 207 seats had failed in testing. ¶ 70 Evenflo further points to Evenflo representative Randolph Kiser's testimony on cross-examination. Kiser testified that Evenflo had recalled the OMW model 206 due to its failure to conform to FMVSS 213. Evenflo contends that Kiser's testimony left the jury with the false impression that the model 207 also must have failed tests. The Malcolms also elicited testimony from Kiser that the Malcolms' superior alternative tunnel design never had failed in testing. Evenflo argued that the court should have allowed it to introduce evidence that the model 207 likewise never had failed in testing even without the tunnel design. ¶ 71 Counsel for the Malcolms also referred to test failures in his closing argument. For example, counsel for the Malcolms made the following statement: Ladies and gentlemen, Exhibit 278-A, that is the list, the chronological list, of all the testing. And you can look for yourself and see the dates of the tests, and you can see the descriptions that Evenflo actually had as to the nature of these cracks. There was a lot of seats, after production started up in late July of 1995. Dozens, and dozens, and dozens of seats in which there were cracks of varying degrees and magnitude in this seat. Now, the crack, itself, doesn't mean the child is going to get killed, but what it is is it's notice that your margin of safety in this design is so thin that you're getting cracks at these speeds. What's going to happen if you are involved in a higher speed impact? Exhibit 278-A lists the test failures compiled by D'Aulerio. Counsel for the Malcolms continued throughout their closing to press the point that Evenflo knew about the design defects from its tests. Counsel argued that Evenflo knew about it. They knew about it from its tests. ¶ 72 Although the District Court did not allow Evenflo to state specifically that the OMW model 207 had passed FMVSS 213, the court did allow Evenflo some latitude. Evenflo informed the jury in its opening statement that the testing that resulted in the recall involved only the model 206. Evenflo explained that it had changed the OMW before it produced the model 207. Evenflo argued that the tests don't tell you anything, at all, about either the Malcolm accident or the Malcolm seat. This wasn't even the same model seat. Evenflo went on to state that the production model 207 was tested another 320 times by NHTSA, by the Canadian Government, by Evenflo, by independent labs, and it passed every test. Every test, it passed. Evenflo argued that the Malcolms' expert D'Aulerio was the only person that's going to testify that ... the Canadians, they got it wrong, NHTSA got it wrong, the independent labs got it wrong, the car seats didn't really pass those tests. Evenflo reiterated that [t]here is not one testing agency that has found that the 207 did not pass the test. ¶ 73 Evenflo representative Kiser testified that the OMW model 207 never was recalled, [un]like the 206. Kiser stated that [not] one single video showed the model 207 breaking apart like the model 206. Kiser testified at length regarding the engineering changes that Evenflo had made to the OMW after the model 206 recall. Kiser pointed out that D'Aulerio had counted failures in model 206 seats and prototype seats in his test failures chart. Kiser further testified that the NHTSA had conducted 22 tests on the model 207 and had not observed any cracks or any problems with the belt hooks. ¶ 74 Evenflo witness William Van Arsdell, an engineer and design expert, also testified at trial. Evenflo's counsel distinguished the OMW model 207 and the model 206 at the beginning of Van Arsdell's testimony. Van Arsdell opined that the Malcolms' OMW model 207 child seat was not defective in any way. Van Arsdell testified that he had conducted rollover crash tests of the OMW model 207 and that the belt hooks had not broken or sustained any damage. Van Arsdell testified that, after reviewing all [of] the sled tests, he believed the model 207 to be a different seat than the model 206. Van Arsdell distinguished between the cracks and fractures that occurred in the model 206 during sled testing and the cracks in the Malcolms' model 207. Van Arsdell testified that not one sled test showed damage to the belt hook of the model 207. ¶ 75 Van Arsdell also testified that the OMW's open belt hook design provided advantages over the Malcolms' alternative tunnel design and the same level of safety. Van Arsdell suggested that the open belt hook design was more convenient than the tunnel design. Van Arsdell added that the open belt hook design promotes easy proper use, and that if you don't use [child seats] properly, they probably can't do you much good. Van Arsdell noted that he was not aware of anyone aside from the Malcolms' expert D'Aulerio who had criticized the open belt hook design. ¶ 76 Evenflo repeatedly tested the boundaries of the District Court's FMVSS 213 ruling. The District Court sustained the Malcolms' objection after Evenflo's counsel asked D'Aulerio you're the only one that's been critical of those test results? Evenflo's counsel, undeterred, drew further objection for inquiries such as you know that NHTSA has specifically tested the model 207, that's at question here? and [y]ou can't sell a child restraint system until NHTSA has deemed it safe and effective, right? The Malcolms' objection cut short a similar attempt to circumvent the court's order in limine in Evenflo's closing argument: [t]his product is regulated by the United States government, by the Canadian government, it's been tested by both governments, by the independent labs. And every lab that man mentioned, has tested this, this 207, and not one lab  ¶ 77 The record does not support Evenflo's claim that the District Court unfairly precluded it from distinguishing the OMW model 207 from the OMW model 206 and from presenting evidence that the model 207 was not defective. Evenflo attempts to bolster its case by again arguing that [t]he disparate treatment of FMVSS evidence is most obvious if one considers the very predicate for the recall of Model 206. That predicate was the FMVSS 213 testing, which showed cracking in some shells. That's the sole basis for the recall. It is true that the cracking of the shells constituted the official reason for the recall. Evenflo ignores the Malcolms' evidence that Evenflo did not inform NHTSA fully of all the defects in the OMW model 206 during the recall process.