Opinion ID: 1788754
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: rhoades' testimony

Text: A series of requests for admission were filed against General Motors, answered August 17, 1988. Number five and its answer reads: REQUEST NO. 5: The fracture of the subject rear axle shaft and its failure were in part associated with an intergranular fracture mode. ANSWER: Admitted. This admission was a clerical mistake of General Motors' counsel. Counsel later moved to withdraw the admission, which was sustained by the court at a pretrial hearing. The court did rule, however, that the admission might be used for impeachment. Plaintiffs not having been misled or prejudiced by this erroneous admission, the court would have erred by overruling the motion. Smith v. First National Bank of Atlanta, 837 F.2d 1575 (11th Cir.1988); Farr Man & Co., Inc. v. M/Z of Rozita, 903 F.2d 871 (1st Cir.1990); American Auto. Assn. v. AAA Legal Clinic of Jefferson Crooke, P.C., 930 F.2d 1117 (5th Cir.Tex. 1991). G.L. Rhoades, accident reconstructionist expert employed October 19, 1989, and sole expert making any semblance of a case against General Motors, testified that Mrs. Jackson's axle marked by white paint by General Motors was defective by their own admission. (Emphasis added.) Of course, General Motors had not admitted any such thing. Following an objection and motion for mistrial, the following was elicited before the jury: Q. BY MR. RAYBURN: Mr. Rhoades, when you were referring in number five to the axle being defective by General Motors' own admission, were you referring to the documentation that you have just showed to the jury? A. I referred to the physical mark on the flange and the document produced by General Motors pursuant to your request. (Emphasis added.) Vol. XVIII, 783. Of course, this was especially harmful, because Rhoades was giving as one basis for a claim of defective axle that General Motors had admitted it. The jury could disregard the rest of Rhoades' opinion if it believed General Motors had admitted it manufactured a defective axle. Unfortunately for General Motors, this was not the only number Rhoades did on it. In his exposition he stated, Now, the General Motors people are going to tell you a version about the accident  to which there was an objection, which was overruled. Rhoades proceeded to state, General Motors has already told me a version of how this accident occurred, and I'm sorry but the U-bolts are bent in the wrong direction. Vol. XVI, 760. Three pages over in his continued exposition Rhoades again informed that jury that General Motors told me they didn't know what happened here. (Emphasis added.) Again there was an objection, which was overruled in the following comment by the court: If he is using what he has learned from the other side in his opinion, then he may do so, if that's the case. So go ahead. Vol. XVIII, 763. Of course, General Motors had not told Rhoades anything. These comments were misleading and untruthful characterizations. This was prior to any General Motors expert taking the stand, and part of plaintiffs' case in chief. Rhoades continued: Excuse me, Your Honor. In other terminology, what I learned from listening to General Motors witnesses in this case was that they didn't know what made this mark after nearly four years. You know, I'm trying to figure that out. I'm looking at all these marks, had this tire at my disposal since November of '89, and I gave them opinions in this case and gave those to Mr. Yerger at the end of December of '89, and I'm trying to figure out who looked at this tire for four years and couldn't find these marks. BY MR. YERGER: Your Honor, could we have a continuing objection to this, advocate? (Emphasis added.) BY THE COURT: Sustain that one. Sustained. A. Now, if I could show you the photographs. BY MR. YERGER: Your Honor, could we approach the Bench? BY THE COURT: No, sir, not at this point. (Emphasis added.) BY MR. YERGER: May we make  BY THE COURT: You may make your motion from right there. Make any motion you have right there. It's just so  BY MR. YERGER: Make motion for a mistrial. BY THE COURT: Overruled. Vol. XVIII, 763-64. Why did the circuit judge never see any reason to admonish Rhoades, or instruct the jury to disregard his blatant advocacy? On cross-examination Rhoades demonstrated his hostility by informing counsel, You still don't understand. Let's go through it again. Vol. XIX, 813. Defense counsel then requested the court to instruct the witness to answer the question and not say that the lawyer doesn't understand or make or make comments to the lawyer like he's the instructor. Vol. XIX, 813. The court did not admonish Rhoades, did not rule. Rhoades finally told the jury that my opinion goes further than a reasonable scientific and engineering probability and certainty ... I would guarantee that to Lloyds of London if I were an underwriter. Vol. XVIII, 785. The court did sustain an objection to this comment, but overruled a motion for a mistrial. Again no admonishment of Rhoades, or instruction to the jury to disregard his outrageous statements. When defense counsel was questioning its own expert, Reynolds, on direct examination, the record reveals the court on its own repeatedly told the witness that he had already answered a question and to move on to another. Vol. XXIV, 1878-80. The court's treatment of Rhoades needs to be compared with his treatment of Chiddester: Q. BY MR. RAYBURN: I'm not talking about braking. I'm talking about when she came back on the road. You've got her off the road. You've got her coming back on the road doing 50 to 60 miles an hours, and you spent about two hours talking about coefficient of friction and everything else to this jury. I want you to tell this jury  well, let me just put it this way. The fact is, there is no physical evidence whatsoever of her coming off that road and her coming back up on that road, on that roadside, is there, Dr. Chiddester? A. No, I wouldn't expect to find any. I don't understand your question. I don't understand your question. It doesn't make sense. BY THE COURT: You cannot offer a comment  A. I'm sorry. BY THE COURT:  Dr. Chiddester. Save your apology until I'm through explaining to you. You don't offer a comment on whether the question is appropriate or not. Vol. XXIII, 1651-52. Again, when Chiddester was on cross-examination, he attempted to inform the court that he had not said what he understood the court said he had said, and when the court said that the book to which Chiddester had been asked to refer made the statement, again the witness attempted to correctly inform the court that It doesn't say  the court interrupted him and told him to wait until he was asked a question. Chiddester was simply trying to correct a misstatement the judge had made which was an incorrect reading of a manual. Chiddester clearly knew what the manual said; the circuit judge obviously did not. The circuit judge had no business giving his interpretation of the manual in the presence of the jury in the first place. [10]