Kudlacek v. Fiat S.p.A.

Christopher Kudlacek (plaintiff) suffered injuries, including brain injuries, that caused him to be permanently and totally disabled following a car accident in which Kudlacek was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Arlan Broome, Jr. The vehicle was a Fiat X1/9. Broome saw an animal crossing the road and steered to avoid the animal, taking his foot off the accelerator pedal. The Fiat went out of control and down an embankment. Broome had no memory of the period after the car left the roadway. Kudlacek sued Fiat (defendant) for manufacturing an unreasonably dangerous vehicle on the theory that the vehicle was unreasonably dangerous because it transitioned from understeer to oversteer. An understeering vehicle turns less than the driver wishes, whereas an oversteering vehicle turns more than the driver intends. To rebut expert testimony that Kudlacek offered to support this theory, Fiat called Edward Heitzman, an automotive engineer, as an expert witness. Heitzman put the Fiat through numerous tests to illustrate whether the Fiat handled differently from other similar cars in normal maneuvers at 45 to 65 miles per hour. Heitzman tested the accident vehicle, as well as a 1987 Fiero GT with a six-cylinder engine, a 1984 Fiero with a four-cylinder engine, a 1987 IROC Z Camaro, a 1975 Pontiac Trans Am, and a 1979 Datsun 280ZX. The other test vehicles were chosen because the cars were similarly high-performance and sporty. Heitzman was allowed to testify and show videos to the jury of the tests on the other vehicles, which Heitzman found to perform substantially similar to the Fiat driven in the accident. Kudlacek raised issues regarding whether the tests were performed in the same manner for all of the vehicles. Heitzman admitted that different speeds were used for some vehicles based on the need to test each vehicle’s spin rate at its limit, and the size of tires and tire pressure could vary between vehicles. Meanwhile, Kudlacek introduced expert testimony that used a computer simulation of the path of the accident vehicle. Fiat objected to the computer simulation because Dickinson, the accident reconstructionist, based his simulation on actions contrary to the testimony of Broome, the driver. Broome testified that he believed he had downshifted and tried to brake at the time of the accident. Dickinson, based on the physical data of the crash, ran his simulation contrary to these actions. Both parties objected to the expert evidence of the other.