Rodgers v. American Honda Motor
Opinion
USCA1 Opinion
March 10, 1995
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 94-1556
DEBRA A. RODGERS, INDIVIDUALLY,
AND BARRY BROWN AND DEBRA A. RODGERS
IN THEIR CAPACITY AS CO-GUARDIANS OF
BRIAN RODGERS, AN INCOMPETENT PERSON,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant, Appellee.
_______________
ERRATA SHEET ERRATA SHEET
The opinion of this Court issued on January 31,
1995, is amended as follows:
1. The first line listing appellee counsel is
corrected to read as follows:
Andrey L. Frey, orally; Wayne D. Struble, Richard _______________ ________________ _______
A. Bowman, . . . _________
2. The last three sentences of the first paragraph
of the opinion are struck.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-1556
DEBRA A. RODGERS, INDIVIDUALLY,
AND BARRY BROWN AND DEBRA A. RODGERS
IN THEIR CAPACITY AS CO-GUARDIANS OF
BRIAN RODGERS, AN INCOMPETENT PERSON,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________
and Stahl, Circuit Judge. _____________
____________________
John C. Cabaniss with whom Cunningham, Lyons & Cabaniss, S.C. was ________________ ___________________________________
on brief for appellants.
Andrew L. Frey, orally; Wayne D. Struble, Richard A. Bowman, _______________ __________________ __________________
Timothy J. Mattson, Bowman and Brooke, Peter W. Culley, David E. ____________________ __________________ ________________ ________
Barry, and Price, Atwood, Scribner, Allen, Smith & Lancaster were on _____ __________________________________________________
brief for appellee.
____________________
January 31, 1995
____________________
-3-
ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge. In 1965, in line _____________________
with the growing concern over the fatal consequence of
contributory negligence, the Maine Legislature enacted a
statute permitting recovery, but reduced damages, in cases
where a plaintiff, though negligent, was less so than the
defendant. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 14, 156. Although
there were a variety of state statutes in effect, the
Legislature chose the English one, see Wing v. Morse, 300 ___ ____ _____
A.2d 491, 497 (Me. 1973), essentially word for word, see ___
Comparative Negligence: Some New Problems for the Maine _____________________________________________________________
Courts, 18 Me. L. Rev. 65, 76 (1966). The statute is unique, ______
and we are not to look for enlightment to decisions in sister
states.
The facts are simple. Brian Rodgers, an
experienced ATV (all terrain vehicle) rider, found himself
without his helmet at a popular Maine spot where a friend
with a three wheel ATV asked him to help repair it. Some
repairs having been made, plaintiff1 gave it a trial run.
It flipped and he struck his head, receiving brain-crippling
injuries. On his motion, liability was tried first, and the
jury's answers to special questions terminated the case in
defendant's favor. Plaintiff has one basic claim on appeal.
We will deal with it rather than with defendant's contention
____________________
1. Strictly, Rodgers is now incompetent and plaintiffs are
his guardians. They are joined by his wife, individually.
We will speak in terms, however, of Rodgers as plaintiff.
-4-
that judgment in its favor would have been proper even if the
evidence plaintiff objected to had been excluded.
For the liability trial, by motion in limine,
plaintiff sought an order excluding testimony that he had not
been wearing a helmet. This was of importance because
defendant had uncontradicted expert testimony that, with a
helmet, plaintiff's injuries would have been insignificant.
Plaintiff's position was that, however much the absence of a
helmet may have added to the damages, it was not a fault that
caused the accident, and that under the Maine statute
comparative fault for the accident itself was the determining
factor. The court ruled otherwise, and the evidence was
subsequently admitted. This was crucial because unless
plaintiff's fault was less than defendant's he was barred by
the statute from recovery. If fault was to be measured by
weighing responsibility for damages, as distinguished from
for the event, on the uncontradicted evidence, it being clear
that plaintiff knew it was best to wear a helmet, he had no
case.
Analysis of the statute persuades us that the court
was correct. It provides, in relevant part,
Where any person suffers death or
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Rodgers v. American Honda Motor, (1st Cir. 1995).
Rodgers v. American Honda Motor (Rodgers v. American Honda Motor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.