IN THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT NO. SC 89610 SHONNIE NEWTON, et al., Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Respondent. And MICHAEL NOLTE and BARBIE NOLTE, Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Respondent. SUBSTITUTE BRIEF OF APPELLANTS J. Kent Emison Grant L. Davis Langdon & Emison Davis, Bethune & Jones, L.L.C. 911 Main Street 1100 Main Street, Ste. 2930 P.O. Box 220 P.O. Box 26250 Lexington, Missouri 64067 Kansas City, Missouri 64196 Phone: (660) 259-6175 Phone: (816) 421-1600 Fax: (660) 259-4571 Fax: (816) 472-5972 Edward D. Robertson, Jr. #27183 Mary D. Winter #38328 Anthony L. DeWitt #41612 BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON & GORNY, P.C. 715 Swifts Highway Jefferson City, MO 65109 573-659-4454, 573-659-4460 Fax ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS CONTENTS STATEMENT OF FACTS..............................................................................................10 A. EVIDENCE REGARDING OTHER SIMILAR INCIDENTS..............................13 1. Post-Newton/Nolte Incidents Presented During Ford’s Opening Argument. ..14 2. The 11 Post-Upgrade Incidents. .......................................................................18 B. EVIDENCE REGARDING IMPEACHMENT OF EXPONENT’S CREDIBILITY. ...........................................................................................................34 C. THE GRUSH-SAUNBY REPORT..................................................................41 D. EVIDENCE REGARDING THE FORD PINTO.............................................44 E. THE NHTSA ODI REPORT............................................................................51 F. PROCEDURAL HISTORY. ................................................................................56 ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................63 I....................................................................................................................................63 A. Standard of Review.......................................................................................64 B. Argument ...........................................................................................................65 C. Conclusion.....................................................................................................89 II...................................................................................................................................91 A. Standard Of Review. .....................................................................................91 B. Factual Background. .....................................................................................92 2 C. The Impeachment Evidence Was Admissible And Proper For Cross- Examination.............................................................................................................97 D. The Evidence Regarding Subia Mulatte And Joe Dierker's Notebook Was Admissible For Purposes Of Contradiction...........................................................103 E. Prejudice Resulted From The Court's Error................................................104 F. Conclusion...................................................................................................106 III. ..............................................................................................................................107 A. Standard Of Review. ...................................................................................107 B. Factual Background. ...................................................................................108 C. The Grush-Saunby Report Was Admissible For Purposes Of Impeachment. ........................................................................................................111 D. The Grush-Saunby Report Was Admissible.....................................................116 E. Prejudice Resulting From The Trial Court's Error......................................118 F. Conclusion...................................................................................................119 A. Standard Of Review. ...................................................................................120 B. The Trial Court Failed To Determine The Trustworthiness Of The ODI Evidence. ...............................................................................................................120 C. Conclusion...................................................................................................128 V. ...............................................................................................................................129 3 A. Standard Of Review. ...................................................................................130 B. The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion And Failed To Carefully Consider Legal Relevance. ...................................................................................................131 C. The Trial Court Failed To Allow Plaintiffs To Impeach Mr. Ridenour Regarding His Credibility......................................................................................137 D. Prejudice Resulted From The Court's Error................................................144 E. Conclusion...................................................................................................145 VI. ..............................................................................................................................146 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................150 4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Alberswerth v. Alberswerth, 184 S.W.3d 81, 100 (Mo. App. 2006) ............................130 Aliff v. Cody, 26 S.W.3d 309, 321 (Mo.App. W.D.2000)......................80, 104, 118, 144 Black v. State, 151 S.W.3d 49, 56 (Mo. banc 2004).......................................99, 112, 141 Bolivar Farmers Exchange v. Eagon, 467 S.W.2d 95, 98 (Mo. App. 1971).........103, 116 Brawley & Flowers, Inc. v. Gunter, 934 S.W.2d 557, 562 (Mo. App. 1996) .......101, 115 Brown v. Yettaw, 116 S.W.3d 733, 736 (Mo. App. 2003)......................................91, 107 Bryan v. State, 134 S.W.3d 795, 800 (Mo. App. 2004) ................................................136 Budding v. Garland Floor Co., Inc., 939 S.W.2d 419, 426 (Mo. App. 1996)103, 104, 117 Bynote v. National Super Markets, Inc., 891 S.W.2d 117, 123 (Mo. banc 1995) 101, 115 Capra v. St. Charles, 932 S.W.2d 851, 855 (Mo. App. 1996)..................................passim Coulter v. Michelin Tire Corp., 622 S.W.2d 421, 433 (Mo. App. 1981)..............101, 115 Crawford v. Shop-N Save Warehouse, Inc., 91 S.W.3d 646, 652 (Mo. App. 2002) ....146 Cummings v. Tepsco Tennessee Pipe and Supply Corp., 632 S.W.2d 498, 501 (Mo. App. 1982).........................................................................................................103, 116 Edgell v. Leighty, 825 S.W.2d 325 (Mo. App. 1992) ...................................................121 Enke v. Anderson, 733 S.W.2d 462, 469 (Mo. App. 1987) ..................................101, 115 Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Fleischer, 772 S.W.2d 809, 818 (Mo. App. 1989)(emphasis added) ..................................................................................................................92, 108 5 Gage v. Morse, 933 S.W.2d 410, 421 (Mo. App. S.D. 1996) ........................................80 Govreau v. Nu-Way Concrete Forms, Inc., 73 S.W.3d 737, 743 (Mo. App. 2002).....103, 104, 117 Guthrie v. Missouri Methodist Hospital, 706 S.W.2d 938, 942-43 (Mo. App. 1986) ....98 Henson v. Board of Education, 948 S.W.2d 202, 209 (Mo. App. 1997) ..............101, 115 In the Matter of Care and Treatment of Cokes v. State, 183 S.W.3d 281, 285 (Mo. App. 2005).......................................................................................................................... 130 Jefferson-Gravois Bank v. Cunningham, 674 S.W.2d 561, 565 (Mo. App. 1984) .........99 Jerry Bennett Masonry, Inc. v. Crossland Const. Co., Inc., 171 S.W.3d 81, 98-99 (Mo. App. 2005).........................................................................................................131, 134 Johnson v. Creative Restaurant Management, 904 S.W.2d 455, 459 (Mo. App. 1995)134 Koontz v. Ferber, 870 S.W.2d 885, 894 (Mo. App. 1993)............................................146 Kuehne v. State, 107 S.W.3d 285, 298 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003)...............................passim Lester v. Sayles, 850 S.W.2d 858, 864 (Mo. banc 1993)................................................86 Long v. St. John’s Regional Health Center, 98 S.W.3d 601, 606 (Mo. App. 2003)92, 99, 108, 130 Mitchell Engineering Co. v. Summit Realty Co., Inc., 647 S.W.2d 130, 141 (Mo. App. 1982)..................................................................................................101, 103, 115, 116 Nelson v. Waxman, 9 S.W.3d 601, 604 (Mo. banc 2000).............................................142 Nicklasson v. State, 105 S.W.3d 482 (Mo. banc 2003)...................................................80 Payne v. Cornhusker Motor Lines, Inc., 177 S.W.3d 820, 836 (Mo. App. 2005) 114, 131 Peters v. General Motors Corp. 200 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) ..........................89 6 Porter v. Toys 'R' Us-Delaware, Inc., 152 S.W.3d 310, 318 (Mo. App. 2004).............132 Powell v. Normal Lines, Inc., 674 S.W.2d 191, 196 (Mo. App. 1984).........................142 Reno v. Wakeman, 869 S.W.2d 219, 223 (Mo. App. 1993) .........................................130 Richcreek