Frost v. Evenflo Co., Inc.
2023 Ohio 4561 (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An affidavit or report from a retained expert that contradicts the expert's prior deposition testimony cannot create a genuine issue of material fact to defeat a summary judgment motion unless the expert provides a sufficient explanation for the contradiction. A plaintiff in a product liability action must present competent evidence that the alleged defect was the proximate cause of the harm, and speculation is insufficient.
Facts:
- On July 3, 2018, Kristina Frost was driving a 2004 Buick Rendezvous with her two children, Shawna Mays (age 5) and Tristan Mays (age 2).
- Tristan was seated in an Evenflo SureRide car seat, which was equipped with an allegedly defective crotch buckle.
- After experiencing car trouble, Kristina pulled over to the side of the highway, at which point the car was on fire with flames higher than her head.
- Kristina first attempted to rescue Shawna from the back driver's side but was unable to unlatch the seat belt and caught on fire.
- After extinguishing the flames on herself by rolling in the grass, Kristina ran to the passenger side to rescue Tristan.
- At some point during these events, Shawna unbuckled herself and exited the vehicle.
- Kristina attempted to unbuckle Tristan's Evenflo car seat but could not get the button on the buckle to depress, struggling for a few seconds before catching fire a second time.
- Tristan died at the scene, and Shawna died the following morning from severe burn injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Kristina Frost and Gary Mays (Appellants) sued Evenflo Company, Inc. (Appellee) in the Miami County Court of Common Pleas (trial court).
- The complaint included claims for product liability based on design defect and failure to warn, as well as wrongful death and survival actions.
- Following discovery, which included depositions of both parties' experts, both sides filed motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Evenflo on the claims related to the children's injuries and deaths.
- In its decision, the trial court struck the rebuttal reports of Appellants' medical experts, applying the 'sham affidavit' rule because the reports contradicted the experts' prior deposition testimony without sufficient explanation.
- The trial court concluded that Appellants failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the allegedly defective buckle proximately caused the children's injuries and deaths.
- Appellants appealed the trial court's summary judgment ruling to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second Appellate District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff in a products liability case create a genuine issue of material fact as to proximate cause when their medical expert's deposition testimony negates causation, and a subsequent rebuttal report contradicts that testimony without a sufficient explanation for the change?
Opinions:
Majority - Welbaum, P.J.
No. A plaintiff fails to create a genuine issue of material fact on proximate cause when their expert's deposition testimony negates that element, and a later contradictory report is submitted without sufficient explanation. The trial court correctly granted summary judgment because the appellants failed to present sufficient evidence that the alleged car seat defect was the proximate cause of the children's injuries and deaths. Regarding Shawna, eyewitness testimony and the appellants' own expert's admission established she was already out of the vehicle before or within seconds of Kristina attempting to free Tristan, meaning any delay caused by the buckle could not have caused Shawna's injuries. Regarding Tristan, the court affirmed the trial court's application of the 'sham affidavit' rule from Pettiford v. Aggarwal to strike the rebuttal reports of the appellants' experts. During his deposition, medical expert Dr. Khandelwal could not opine whether Tristan's injuries were survivable or if he was conscious and experiencing pain when Kristina reached him, which was fatal to proving proximate cause. His later rebuttal report, which directly contradicted this testimony, was properly disregarded as a 'sham' because he offered no explanation for the change in his opinion, and it was submitted to defeat a pending summary judgment motion. Without this report, appellants had no evidence to create a triable issue on whether the buckle defect caused Tristan's conscious pain, suffering, or death.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant gatekeeping role of the 'sham affidavit' rule in preventing parties from surviving summary judgment by introducing last-minute, unexplained changes to their own expert's testimony. It affirms that an expert's deposition is a critical point in litigation, and fatal admissions on essential elements like proximate cause cannot be easily 'fixed' later. The case serves as a stark reminder that even in emotionally compelling and tragic circumstances, a plaintiff must present consistent, competent evidence on every element of their claim. For future product liability cases, this ruling strengthens a defendant's ability to obtain summary judgment when a plaintiff's key expert vacillates or contradicts prior sworn testimony without a credible reason.
