2020 AAJ Fact Pattern

2020 AAJ Fact Pattern CARSON GRAY V. EDISON AUTOMOBILE COMPANY Prepared by A. Michael Gianantonio of Robert Peirce & Associates The competition fact pattern is copyrighted © 2019 by American Association for Justice (AAJ), formerly The Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA®), and may not be used for purposes other than its intended use without the express written consent of AAJ. Table of Contents Complaint .........................................................................................................................................3 Answer and Affirmative Defenses ...................................................................................................7 Stipulations ....................................................................................................................................11 Joint Exhibit List ............................................................................................................................14 Deposition of Carson Gray ............................................................................................................15 Deposition of Keaton Scent ...........................................................................................................27 Deposition of Chaz Shanton ..........................................................................................................38 Expert Opinion of Tony Stork, M.S...............................................................................................43 C.V. of Tony Stork, M.S. ...............................................................................................................46 Expert Opinion of Nat Romanov, Sc.D.. .......................................................................................48 C.V. of Nat Romanov, Sc.D. .........................................................................................................51 Exhibit A ........................................................................................................................................53 Exhibit B ........................................................................................................................................54 Exhibit C ........................................................................................................................................62 Exhibit D ........................................................................................................................................63 Exhibit E-1 .....................................................................................................................................64 Exhibit E-2 .....................................................................................................................................87 Exhibit E-3 ...................................................................................................................................136 Exhibit F.......................................................................................................................................180 Jury Instructions ...........................................................................................................................182 Verdict Form ................................................................................................................................189 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF STEELTON CARSON GRAY; Plaintiff, GD No.: 17-01081977 v. EDISON AUTOMOBILE COMPANY; Defendant. COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Carson Gray, and files the within Complaint, the following of which is a statement: I. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Carson Gray, is an adult individual residing at 5064 Yoh Avenue, Steelton, in the District of Steelton. 2. Defendant, Edison Automobile Company (“Edison”), is a Delaware corporation with a business address of 125 Hyperloop Drive, Los Francisco, in the state of California. 3. At all times relevant hereto, Edison acted through its employees, agents, contractors and/or subcontractors. II. FACTS 4. In 2015, Edison commenced a pilot program in Steelton for its autonomously driving automobiles. 5. After making numerous representations to local, state, and national authorities that Edison had suitable technology to test these vehicles in a “real world” situation, Steelton granted Edison permission to utilize the city as Edison’s laboratory. STAC 3 6. Edison simultaneously began pilot programs in Lone Star and Buffalo- Niagara. 7. Edison was working in partnership with Lyber, an internet-based ride sharing platform that outsourced passenger transportation to a network of independently operating drivers. 8. Lyber users could utilize an app on their smart phone to call for transportation; a Lyber driver would then pick up the user and take the user to his or her destination. 9. It was Edison’s hope to replace Lyber drivers with fully automated vehicles that no longer required a driver to operate. 10. In February 2017, a fleet of 15 Edison self-driving vehicles began operating in Steelton, providing rides to Lyber users. 11. In March 2017, an Edison vehicle, working in partnership with Lyber in Buffalo-Niagara, was en route to pick up a Lyber user, when the Edison vehicle left the street and drove on the sidewalk for several hundred feet. 12. Darren Ryan, the local engineer in charge of Buffalo-Niagara operations sent multiple communications to Edison suggesting that the all autonomous vehicles be taken out of service until a full inquiry could be made. 13. Keaton Scent, founder of Edison and lead engineer on the project, determined a full stop on the project was not necessary and kept all Edison vehicles in service. 14. In the later afternoon hours of September 4, 2017, Carson Gray was in a parking space on Webster Street in Penn’s Woods. STAC 4 15. The parking space was on-street parking and Carson Gray’s motorcycle was legally parked in the on-street parking space. 16. At the same time, an Edison autonomous vehicle was making a right from Pennsylvania Avenue and continued onto Webster Street to pick up a passenger at the corner of Webster Street and New York Avenue. 17. There was a designated Lyber pick-up area located adjacent to the parking space where Carson Gray’s motorcycle was parked. 18. Carson Gray had not moved from the parking space where the motorcycle was parked, when suddenly, and without warning, the Edison autonomous vehicle struck Carson. 19. As a result of the collision, Carson suffered multiple injuries including, but not limited to, a fractured right tibia, a fractured right femur, a fractured left tibia, a fractured pelvis, and a closed head injury. 20. All of Carson’s injuries were caused by the negligence of Defendant Edison. COUNT I Negligence 21. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous Paragraphs of the Complaint as if set forth in their entirety herein. 22. As a motorist on a public thoroughfare, Edison owed Carson a duty of care. 23. Edison breached its duty to Carson insofar as: a) Edison knew, or should have known, that its vehicles were not capable of operating in a manner in which they would obey all Steelton’s traffic laws; STAC 5 b) Edison knew, or should have known, that there was a problem in the self-driving vehicle software based upon the incident occurring in Buffalo-Niagara; and c) Edison knew, or should have known, that its vehicles were prone to prematurely leave their lane of traffic. 24. Edison directly and proximately harmed Carson when Edison’s self-driving vehicle struck Carson on September 4, 2017. 25. As a result of this collision, Carson suffered significant and severe injuries. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant, in an amount in excess of the prevailing arbitration limits, exclusive of prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest and costs; for punitive damages; and for such other relief as this Court seems fit to award. A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED Respectfully submitted /s/ Luna Swatkins Attorney for Plaintiff STAC 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF STEELTON CARSON GRAY; Plaintiff, GD No.: 17-01081977 v. EDISON AUTOMOBILE COMPANY; Defendant. ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND NOW, comes Defendant, Edison Automobile Company (“EAC”), and files the within Answer and Affirmative Defenses, the following of which is a statement: ANSWER 1-2. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 2 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are admitted. 3. As the averments of Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, constitute conclusions of law, no responsive pleading is required. 4. The averments of Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied as stated. While EAC’s vehicles were first deployed in August 2015, EAC commenced its driverless Highway Integrated Transportation program (“HIT”) in first quarter 2011. After a series of rigorous in-house testing, closed course testing, and driver-assisted testing, the fully autonomous vehicles were put into service in Steelton in August 2015. 5. The averments of Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied as stated. EAC rigorously tested its autonomous vehicles and presented verified, empirical information to Steelton and other local, state, and federal regulatory agencies that the vehicles were safe for use on public roadways because they were and are. STAC 7 6. In response to Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, EAC incorporates by reference its Answer to Paragraph 4. 7-8. The averments of Paragraphs 7 through 8 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are admitted. 9. The averments of Paragraph 9 are denied.

Load more