Court Opinion

ID: 9742121
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:07:02.901692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:28.636404
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
With the exception of the conclusion, I agree with most of what is said in the majority opinion. I therefore respectfully dissent.
The issue is clear. Bachmeiers hope to prove a design defect in the hub. The defect, if it exists, is present in all the hubs PACCAR manufactured and can be proven by any hub manufactured from that design.
PACCAR hopes to defend, for purposes of this issue, on a theory that the cause of the failure was the lack of lubrication of the destroyed hub, notwithstanding any defect in the design, (which they do not concede but in any event, is not material for purposes of this issue). The lack of lubrication is not a fabricated-for-the-moment defense but is supported by Loper, the plaintiffs’ expert witness.
Because the issue is relatively simple, I do not agree that a remand for the purpose of further expert testimony is justified. It does not require expert testimony to tell us that a design defect may be proven without the actual hub but a defense of lack of lubrication as causation of the failure of the hub cannot be proven without the actual hub. PACCAR is therefore prejudiced in a real sense. Thus, the parties are not “equally prejudiced by the destruction of the hub.” These “equal ‘prejudices’ ” do not, “in some manner, cancel each other out,” and a “ ‘two tie, all tie’ analysis is simply incorrect.” Headley v. Chrysler Motor Corporation, 141 F.R.D. 362, 366 (D.Mass.1991). Rather; PACCAR is prejudiced in the real sense.
I believe the trial court adequately weighed the arguments, including the fact photos of the hub are available although taken for purposes other then to illustrate lubrication of the hub or lack thereof. I would affirm the judgment of the district court.