quilez-velar v. ox bodies, inc., 1st cir. (2016)

7/25/2019 Quilez-Velar v. Ox Bodies, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)

1/25

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 15- 146615- 1533

BERARDO A. QUI LEZ- VELAR; MARTA BONELLI - CABAN;BERARDO A. QUI LEZ- BONELLI ; CARLOS A. QUI LEZ- BONELLI ,

Pl ai nt i f f s, Appel l ant s/ Cr oss- Appel l ees,

v.

OX BODI ES, I NC. ,

Def endant , Appel l ee/ Cr oss- Appel l ant .

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Si l vi a L. Car r eo- Col l , U. S. Magi st r at e J udge]

Bef ore

Lynch, Sel ya, and Li pez,Ci r cui t J udges.

J os Lui s Ubar r i , wi t h whom Davi d W. Romn and Ubar r i & RomanLaw Of f i ce wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant s.

J ohn M. Roche, wi t h whom Kevi n S. Tayl or , Ar r on Nesbi t t ,Tayl or Ander son, LLP, Fr anci sco J . Col on- Pagan, Fr anci sco E.Col on- Rami r ez, and Col n & Col n, P. S. C. wer e on br i ef , f or

appel l ee.

May 9, 2016


2/25

- 2 -

LYNCH, Circuit Judge. Thi s di ver si t y case ar ose f r om

t he deat h of Mar i bel Qui l ez- Bonel l i f ol l owi ng an aut omobi l e

acci dent i nvol vi ng Mar i bel ' s J eep Li ber t y and a t r uck i n use by

Muni ci pal i t y of San J uan empl oyees t hat had f i t t ed ont o i t s t r ash

body an under r i de guar d desi gned by Ox Bodi es, I nc. ( "Ox Bodi es" ) .

Mar i bel ' s f ami l y member s brought sui t i n f eder al cour t agai nst Ox

Bodi es, seeki ng damages f or , i nt er al i a, def ect i ve desi gn of t he

under r i de guar d. A j ur y f ound Ox Bodi es st r i ct l y l i abl e f or

def ect i ve desi gn and awar ded t he pl ai nt i f f s damages t ot al i ng

$6, 000, 000. By speci al ver di ct f or m, t he j ur y assi gned 20% of

r esponsi bi l i t y f or t he damages t o Ox Bodi es, 80% t o t he

Muni ci pal i t y of San J uan, whi ch was not a par t y i n t he sui t , and

0% t o Mar i bel . The pr esi di ng magi st r at e j udge r ul ed t hat j udgment

shoul d ent er on t he str i ct l i abi l i t y cl ai m i n f avor of t he

pl ai nt i f f s and t hat under Puer t o Ri co l aw, Ox Bodi es shoul d be

hel d r esponsi bl e onl y f or 20% of t he damages award, whi ch equal ed

$1, 200, 000. Thi s appeal and cr oss- appeal f ol l owed.

Ox Bodi es appeal s t he ver di ct , cont endi ng t hat t he cour t

shoul d not have al l owed t he pl ai nt i f f s' exper t t o t est i f y on an

al t er nat i ve under r i de guar d desi gn, and t hat absent such

t est i mony, no r easonabl e j ur y coul d have f ound f or t he pl ai nt i f f s.

The pl ai nt i f f s appeal t he or der l i mi t i ng t hei r r ecover y, ar gui ng

t hat under Puer t o Ri co l aw Ox Bodi es shoul d be hel d " j oi nt l y and

several l y l i abl e t o t he pl ai nt i f f [ s ] f or t he t ot al i t y of t he


3/25

- 3 -

damages" - - t he ent i r e $6, 000, 000 awar d - - such t hat " t he r i sk of

l oss of havi ng t o pay t he ent i r e j udgment wi t hout obt ai ni ng

cont r i but i on i s bor ne by t he def endant j oi nt t or t f easor , not by

the pl ai nt i f f s. "

We af f i r m t he cour t ' s deci si on t o admi t t he pl ai nt i f f s'

exper t ' s t est i mony and so r ej ect Ox Bodi es' appeal . On t he

pl ai nt i f f s' appeal , i n t he absence of cl ear Puer t o Ri co l aw, we

cer t i f y t o the Puer t o Ri co Supr eme Cour t t he quest i on of t he extent

of Ox Bodi es' l i abi l i t y f or t he damages awar d.

I .

On Oct ober 1, 2010, Mar i bel Qui l ez- Bonel l i , a t hen 28-

year - ol d mar r i ed woman and mot her , was dr i vi ng on a hi ghway

over pass near t he ci t y of San J uan i n a 2004 J eep Li ber t y wi t h her

t oddl er son when her J eep col l i ded wi t h a st opped or sl owl y movi ng

t r uck i n use by Muni ci pal i t y of San J uan empl oyees. The t r uck

bore an underr i de guard near i t s r ear t hat had been desi gned by Ox

Bodi es. The f r ont of Mar i bel ' s J eep hi t t he t r uck f r ombehi nd and

under r ode t he t r uck' s t r ash body such t hat t he t r uck penet r at ed

t he J eep' s passenger compar t ment and st r uck Mar i bel , l acer at i ng

her head and f ace. Mar i bel di ed f r omr esul t i ng i nj ur i es on Oct ober

6, 2010.

Mari bel ' s f ami l y members, Ber ar do A. Qui l ez- Vel ar , Mar t a

Bonel l i - Caban, Ber ar do A. Qui l ez- Bonel l i , and Car l os A. Qui l ez-


4/25

- 4 -

Bonel l i 1 ( col l ect i vel y "Qui l ez") , br ought sui t i n a Puer t o Ri co

cour t and i n f eder al cour t . 2 I n a Puer t o Ri co t r i al cour t , Qui l ez

f i l ed an amended compl ai nt on November 1, 2011, al l egi ng negl i gence

and seeki ng damages f r om, i nt er al i a, t he Commonweal t h of Puer t o

Ri co, t he Puer t o Ri co Hi ghway and Tr anspor t at i on Aut hor i t y,

I nt egr and Assur ance Company ( " I nt egr and") , and t he Muni ci pal i t y of

San J uan. The Muni ci pal i t y of San J uan and I nt egr and br ought a

t hi r d- par t y compl ai nt f or i ndemni f i cat i on or cont r i but i on agai nst ,

i nt er al i a, Ox Bodi es and i t s par ent company, Truck Bodi es &

Equi pment I nt er nat i onal , I nc. On May 16, 2014, t he Muni ci pal i t y

of San J uan, t hr ough i t s i nsur er , deposi t ed wi t h t he Puer t o Ri co

cour t i t s maxi mum pol i cy l i mi t , $500, 000, f or pot ent i al

di st r i but i on i f f ound l i abl e. The Puer t o Ri co cour t or der ed t hat

t he f unds be di st r i but ed t o t he pl ai nt i f f s and di smi ssed t he

Muni ci pal i t y of San J uan f r om sui t . Qui l ez expr essl y r epr esent ed

t o t hi s cour t t hat " [ n] o set t l ement agr eement was ever execut ed

and [ Qui l ez] gr ant ed no r el ease [ t o] or assumed any l i abi l i t y"

f r om t he Muni ci pal i t y of San J uan or i t s i nsur er . Ox Bodi es

1 For si mpl i ci t y, we r ef er t o Mar i bel Qui l ez- Bonel l i as"Mar i bel " and t he pl ai nt i f f s as "Qui l ez" goi ng f or war d.

2 Mar i bel ' s sur vi vi ng husband, Franci sco Fel i x- Navas, andher sur vi vi ng son, Franci sco Andr es Fel i x- Qui l ez, t oget her al sof i l ed sui t i n a Puer t o Ri co cour t seeki ng damages r esul t i ng f r omMar i bel ' s acci dent . The t wo Puer t o Ri co sui t s wer e consol i dat ed.


5/25

- 5 -

conceded t hi s poi nt at oral argument , no document i n t he r ecor d

est abl i shes ot her wi se, and so we accept Qui l ez' s r epr esent at i on.

On March 20, 2013, Qui l ez f i l ed an amended compl ai nt i n

i t s di ver si t y acti on i n f eder al di st r i ct cour t agai nst Ox Bodi es,

i t s parent company, and ot her def endant s, f or def ect i ve desi gn and

negl i gence under Puert o Ri co l aw. Ox Bodi es and i t s par ent company

brought a t hi rd- part y cl ai m f or cont r i but i on and/ or

i ndemni f i cat i on agai nst , i nt er al i a, t he Muni ci pal i t y of San J uan.

On May 16, 2014, t he Muni ci pal i t y of San J uan not i f i ed t he f eder al

cour t t hat i t had deposi t ed $500, 000 t hat day wi t h t he Puer t o Ri co

cour t . On Sept ember 4, 2014, t he f eder al cour t di smi ssed t he

Muni ci pal i t y of San J uan f r om t he sui t , wi t hout obj ect i on f r om Ox

Bodi es. Qui l ez- Vel ar v. Ox Bodi es, I nc. , No. CI V. 12- 1780, 2014

WL 4385418, at *2, *3 (D. P. R. Sept . 4, 2014) , r econsi der at i on

deni ed, No. CI V. 12- 1780, 2014 WL 4656649 ( D. P. R. Sept . 17, 2014) .

At t he t i me of t hi s appeal , t he onl y r emai ni ng def endant i s Ox

Bodi es.

On J anuar y 26, 2015, Ox Bodi es f i l ed a pr e- t r i al mot i on

i n l i mi ne t o excl ude t he t est i mony of Qui l ez' s exper t , Per r y

Ponder , ar gui ng t hat "Mr . Ponder ' s r epor t i s devoi d of any

sci ent i f i c anal ysi s or cal cul at i ons t hat woul d suppor t " hi s

concl usi on t hat hi s pr oposed al t er nat i ve under r i de guar d desi gn

"woul d have been [ a] saf er desi gn i n t he i nst ant acci dent , " and

t hat hi s opi ni ons shoul d be excl uded under Dauber t v. Mer r el l Dow


6/25

- 6 -

Phar maceut i cal s, I nc. , 509 U. S. 579 ( 1993) . 3 Ox Bodi es suppor t ed

i t s mot i on wi t h excer pt s f r om Ponder ' s deposi t i on and exper t

r epor t , but i t di d not r equest t hat Ponder t est i f y at a Dauber t

hear i ng. 4 Qui l ez opposed t he mot i on.

Af t er r evi ewi ng bot h par t i es' submi ssi ons and r el evant

di scover y mat er i al s, t he magi st r at e j udge, pr esi di ng pur suant t o

28 U. S. C. 636, deni ed t he mot i on t o excl ude Ponder ' s t est i mony.

Qui l ez- Vel ar v. Ox Bodi es, I nc. , No. CI V. 12- 1780, 2015 WL 418151,

at *7 ( D. P. R. Feb. 1, 2015) . The magi st r ate j udge acknowl edged Ox

Bodi es' ar gument t hat Ponder "di d not per f or m speci f i c t est s or

cal cul at i ons i n t he cour se of hi s anal ysi s, " but f ound, f i r st ,

t hat Ox Bodi es f ai l ed t o "show t hat t hese speci f i c t est s must have

been car r i ed out t o pr ovi de a f oundat i on f or Ponder ' s opi ni ons, "

3 Ox Bodi es descr i bed a r ange of f or egone cal cul at i ons,i ncl udi ng, i nt er al i a, t hat Ponder "di d not cal cul at e t he peakf or ce of t he col l i s i on, t he coef f i ci ent of r est i t ut i on, or t heaverage or maxi mum f orces of t he i mpact " ; "he di d not conduct anyanal ysi s t o det er mi ne the ener gy absor pt i on t hat t he pr oposeddesi gn change coul d sust ai n" ; t he repor t s he "r el i ed upon eval uat edi mpact s and f or ces t hat wer e di f f er ent f r omt hose i nvol ved i n t hi scase" ; "he di d not per f or m any f i ni t e el ement anal ysi s" ; and hedi d not cal cul at e t he " l oads cr eat ed i n a col l i si on bet ween a t r uckand a passenger vehi cl e. "

4 A t r i al cour t may or der a Dauber t hear i ng t o scr een t hepr of f er of sci ent i f i c t est i mony t o det er mi ne whet her i t crossest he Dauber t t hr eshol d. See, e. g. , Samaan v. St . J oseph Hosp. , 670F. 3d 21, 31 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . " [ T] he scope of a Dauber t hear i ng i snot l i mi t ed t o an appr ai sal of an exper t ' s cr edent i al s andt echni ques but al so ent ai l s an exami nat i on of hi s concl usi ons t odet er mi ne whet her t hey f l ow r at i onal l y f r om t he met hodol ogyempl oyed. " I d. at 32.


7/25

- 7 -

and second, t hat upon "r evi ew[ i ng] Ponder ' s r epor t , . . . i t s

concl usi ons are wel l - expl ai ned, and i t s use of crash- t est dat a

appear s appr opr i at e. " I d.

At t r i al , when Qui l ez moved t o qual i f y Ponder as an

exper t , Ox Bodi es r equest ed voi r di r e, whi ch was i ni t i al l y

conduct ed i n f r ont of t he j ur y and dur i ng whi ch Ponder acknowl edged

t hat he di d not cr ash- t est hi s pr oposed al t er nat i ve desi gn and

t hat none of hi s " r ear under r i de guar d desi gns" had ever been

adopt ed by t i l t or dump bed manuf act ur ers. Ox Bodi es conceded

t hat Ponder was qual i f i ed as an acci dent r econst r uct i oni st but

r enewed i t s obj ect i on t o Ponder ' s t est i f yi ng about an al t er nat i ve

desi gn f or an under r i de guar d. The cour t per mi t t ed f ur t her

quest i oni ng by bot h par t i es out si de the pr esence of t he j ur y,

spanni ng mor e t han ni ne pages of t r anscr i pt , bef or e ul t i mat el y

r ul i ng t hat Ponder was qual i f i ed t o t est i f y about an al t er nat i ve

under r i de guar d desi gn.

Fol l owi ng a 12- day t r i al , t he j ur y r et ur ned a ver di ct

f i ndi ng Ox Bodi es st r i ct l y l i abl e t o Qui l ez f or def ect i ve desi gn.

I n t he magi st r ate j udge' s March 3, 2015, memorandum and order ,

damages wer e appor t i oned as descr i bed ear l i er . Qui l ez- Vel ar v. Ox

Bodi es, I nc. , No. CI V. 12- 1780, 2015 WL 898255, at *13 ( D. P. R.

Mar . 3, 2015) .


8/25

- 8 -

I I .

Ox Bodi es appeal s t he admi ss i on of Ponder ' s t est i mony

r egar di ng a f easi bl e saf er al t er nat i ve desi gn, ar gui ng t hat

wi t hout Ponder ' s t est i mony no r easonabl e j ur y coul d have f ound i t

l i abl e. "Under Puer t o Ri can t or t l aw gover ni ng desi gn def ect

cl ai ms, i f t he pl ai nt i f f pr oves t hat ' t he pr oduct' s desi gn i s t he

pr oxi mate cause of t he damage, ' t he bur den shi f t s t o t he def endant

t o pr ove t hat ' t he benef i t s of t he desi gn at i ssue out wei gh t he

r i sk of danger i nher ent i n such a desi gn. ' " Qui nt ana- Rui z v.

Hyundai Mot or Cor p. , 303 F. 3d 62, 69 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( quot i ng

Apont e Ri ver a v. Sear s Roebuck de P. R. , I nc. , 144 P. R. Dec. 830,

840 n. 9 ( 1998) , 1998 P. R. - Eng. 324486 n. 9, 1998 WL 198857 n. 9) .

Her e, t he cour t i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat i f i t f ound t hat t he

pl ai nt i f f s met t hei r bur den, t hen "[ i ] n deci di ng whet her t he

benef i t s out wei gh t he r i sks, " i t shoul d consi der a number of

f act or s, i ncl udi ng "[ t ] he f easi bi l i t y of an al t er nat i ve saf er

desi gn at t he t i me of manuf act ur e. " Nei t her par t y cont est s t hi s

i nstr uct i on. 5

Ponder ' s exper t r epor t poi nt ed t o t wo key def i ci enci es

i n Ox Bodi es' guar d desi gn: f i r st , " [ a] ppr oxi mat el y t he out si de 16

5 As we sai d i n Qui nt ana- Rui z, " [ t ] her e ar e at l east t hr eevi ews of how t he exi st ence, or non- exi st ence, of a mechani cal l yf easi bl e al t er nat i ve desi gn f i t s i nt o t he r i sk- ut i l i t y bal anci ngt est , " 303 F. 3d at 71, and " [ i ] t i s not cl ear what vi ew t he Puer t oRi co cour t s woul d f ol l ow, " i d. at 72; see i d. at 7172 ( descr i bi ngt he t hr ee vi ews) .


9/25

- 9 -

i nches on each si de of t he r ear of t he [ Ox Bodi es] t r uck i s l ef t

wi t hout any under r i de guar di ng at al l , " and second, " t he guar d i s

not suf f i ci ent l y br aced agai nst i mpact s" because " [ t ] he out si de

span of t he hor i zont al member i s a beam suppor t ed at an i nt er i or

l ocat i on, but unsuppor t ed at t he end, " such t hat par t of t he guar d

"woul d begi n t o f ai l at a l oad of appr oxi mat el y 7, 000 l bs. " He

f ur t her opi ned t hat "[ t ] he f r ont al col l i s i on saf et y f eat ur es i n

[ Mar i bel ' s] J eep Li ber t y wer e r ender ed i nef f ect i ve because t he

. . . t r uck l acked a subst ant i al l y const r uct ed under r i de guar d. "

Ponder ' s r epor t went on t o concl ude that " [ t ] her e exi st

f easi bl e saf er al t er nat i ve r ear i mpact guar d desi gns f or " t he t r uck

i nvol ved her e. He not ed a number of publ i shed st udi es t hat "of f er

compl et ed t r uck underr i de guar d desi gns. " He out l i ned a desi gn

sui t ed f or t he i nst ant t r uck, "consi st [ i ng] of a hor i zont al member

posi t i oned at t he or ver y cl ose to t he r ear ext r emi t y of t he

vehi cl e, l ong enough t o pr ot ect t he ent i r e wi dt h of t he t r uck, "

and "[ d] i agonal br aci ng . . . pl aced at t he t r uck bed' s i nt er i or

l ongi t udi nal members and si de l ongi t udi nal members at a 45 degr ee

angl e al ong wi t h a ver t i cal suppor t t o compl et e t he t r uss at t he

si de ext r emi t i es. "

Our r evi ew of t he magi st r at e j udge' s deci si on t o admi t

Ponder ' s t est i mony on al t er nat i ve desi gn i s f or abuse of

di scr et i on. Kumho Ti r e Co. v. Car mi chael , 526 U. S. 137, 152

( 1999) . "Absent a mat er i al er r or of l aw, we wi l l not second- guess


10/25

- 10 -

such a di scret i onar y det er mi nat i on unl ess i t appear s t hat t he t r i al

cour t ' commi t t ed a meani ngf ul er r or i n j udgment . ' " Uni t ed St at es

v. J or dan, 813 F. 3d 442, 445 ( 1st Ci r . 2016) ( quot i ng Rui z- Tr oche

v. Pepsi Col a of P. R. Bot t l i ng Co. , 161 F. 3d 77, 83 ( 1st Ci r .

1998) ) . We f i nd t hat under Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 702, t he

magi st r at e j udge' s deci si on to admi t Ponder ' s t est i mony was wi t hi n

her di scr et i on.

Under Federal Rul e of Evi dence 702:

A wi t ness who i s qual i f i ed as an exper t by

knowl edge, ski l l , exper i ence, t r ai ni ng, oreducat i on may t est i f y i n t he f or m of anopi ni on or ot her wi se i f :

( a) t he exper t ' s sci ent i f i c, t echni cal , orot her speci al i zed knowl edge wi l l hel p t het r i er of f act t o under st and t he evi dence or t odet er mi ne a f act i n i ssue;( b) t he t est i mony i s based on suf f i ci ent f act sor dat a;( c) t he t est i mony i s t he pr oduct of r el i abl e

pr i nci pl es and methods; and( d) t he exper t has r el i abl y appl i ed t hepr i nci pl es and met hods t o t he f act s of t hecase.

Fed. R. Evi d. 702. The magi st r at e j udge her e must "ser ve[ ] as t he

gat ekeeper f or exper t t est i mony by ' ensur i ng t hat [ i t ] . . . bot h

r est s on a r el i abl e f oundat i on and i s r el evant t o t he t ask at

hand. ' "6

Mi l war d v. Rust - Ol eum Cor p. , No. 13- 2132, 2016 WL

6 Al t hough Ox Bodi es' openi ng br i ef cont ends t hat whethera t r i al cour t has acted as a gat ekeeper i s subj ect t o de novor evi ew, see Smi t h v. J enki ns, 732 F. 3d 51, 64 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) , OxBodi es has not ar gued t hat t he magi st r at e j udge f ai l ed t o per f or mt hat r ol e. And so any ar gument on t hat i ssue i s wai ved. See


11/25

- 11 -

1622620, at *3 (1st Ci r . Apr . 25, 2016) ( second and t hi r d

al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Dauber t , 509 U. S. at 597) .

Ther e i s no di sput e t hat t est i mony r egar di ng al t er nat i ve

desi gn was necessar y t o det er mi ne a f act at i ssue. The magi st r at e

j udge act ed wi t hi n her di scr et i on i n det er mi ni ng t hat Ponder ' s

"sci ent i f i c, t echni cal , or ot her speci al i zed knowl edge" woul d hel p

t he j ur y det er mi ne t hat i ssue. Fed. R. Evi d. 702( a) . Ponder , a

l i censed pr of essi onal engi neer wi t h a degr ee i n mechani cal

engi neer i ng, has desi gned and t est ed at l east f our under r i de

guar ds, r evi ewed cr ash t est s and under r i de cr ashes, and l ect ur ed

or publ i shed on t he subj ect s of under r i de guar d hi st or y,

r egul at i ons, and si de under r i de guar d pr ot ect i ons. He i s al so

cer t i f i ed by t he Accr edi t at i on Commi ssi on f or Tr af f i c Acci dent

Reconst r uct i on as an acci dent r econst r uct i oni st and has per f or med

mor e t han 400 acci dent r econst r uct i ons, i ncl udi ng about t went y i n

underr i de cases. On appeal , Ox Bodi es has not r ai sed a devel oped

Uni t ed St at es v. Zanni no, 895 F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) . Even i fpr oper l y r ai sed, such an ar gument woul d be di f f i cul t i n t heseci r cumst ances, as Ox Bodi es nei t her r equest ed a Daubert hear i ng

nor ment i oned Dauber t i n i t s obj ect i on t o Ponder ' s qual i f i cat i onsdur i ng t he voi r di r e at t r i al , and t he magi st r at e j udge ent er t ai nedOx Bodi es' ar gument s i n r ul i ng on i t s mot i on i n l i mi ne andper mi t t ed addi t i onal quest i oni ng at t r i al bef or e r ul i ng onPonder ' s qual i f i cat i ons. See J enki ns, 732 F. 3d at 64 ( "I f we ar esat i sf i ed t hat t he cour t di d not al t oget her abdi cat e i t s r ol e underDauber t , we r evi ew f or abuse of di scr et i on i t s deci si on t o admi tor excl ude exper t t est i mony. " ) .


12/25

- 12 -

obj ect i on t o t he r el evance of t hese exper i ences t o t he i ssue at

hand.

Rat her , t he cent r al quest i on bef or e us concer ns whet her

t he magi st r at e j udge abused her di scr et i on i n concl udi ng t hat

Ponder ' s t est i mony on al t er nat i ve desi gn was suf f i ci ent l y rel i abl e

t o sur vi ve t he admi ssi bi l i t y t hr eshol d. 7 Ox Bodi es asser t s t hat

Ponder ' s t est i mony shoul d have been excl uded under Dauber t because

t he exper t must have act ual l y t est ed t he al t er nat i ve desi gn, ei t her

physi cal l y or usi ng comput er model i ng, and Ponder di d not do so.

Ox Bodi es' argument r est s on a pr of ound mi sunderst andi ng of

Dauber t , whi ch eschews such per se approaches. See Kumho Ti r e

Co. , 526 U. S. at 150 ( hol di ng t hat t he i nqui r y "depends upon t he

par t i cul ar ci r cumst ances of t he par t i cul ar case at i ssue") ;

Mi l war d v. Acui t y Speci al t y Pr ods. Gr p. , I nc. , 639 F. 3d 11, 1620

( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( conduct i ng a f act - speci f i c "r el i abi l i t y"

i nqui r y) . "Test i ng i s cer t ai nl y one of t he most common and usef ul

r el i abi l i t y gui depost s f or a di st r i ct cour t when cont empl at i ng

pr oposed Rul e 702 evi dence. " Lapsl ey v. Xt ek, I nc. , 689 F. 3d 802,

815 ( 7t h Ci r . 2012) . However , t hi s ci r cui t has never adopt ed a

7 Under Daubert , cour t s may consi der a number of f actorsi n assessi ng r el i abi l i t y: whet her a t heor y or t echni que can be andhas been t est ed; whet her i t has been put t hr ough peer r evi ew andhas been publ i shed; whet her i t has a hi gh er r or r at e; and whet heri t has been gener al l y accept ed wi t hi n t he r el evant sci ent i f i c ort echni cal communi t y. See Kumho Ti r e Co. , 526 U. S. at 149150;Rui z- Troche, 161 F. 3d at 8081.


13/25

- 13 -

r ul e t hat an exper t hi msel f must have t est ed an al t er nat i ve desi gn,

much l ess by bui l di ng one. We decl i ne t o adopt ei t her r equi r ement

as a br i ght - l i ne r ul e or as appl i ed t o t hi s case. See Kumho Ti r e

Co. , 526 U. S. at 150 ( " [ T] he f act or s [ Dauber t ] ment i ons do not

const i t ut e a ' def i ni t i ve checkl i st or t est . ' " ( quot i ng Dauber t ,

509 U. S. at 593) ) ; J ohnson v. Mani t owoc Boom Tr ucks, I nc. , 484

F. 3d 426, 43133 ( 6t h Ci r . 2007) ( decl i ni ng t o hol d t hat t est i ng

i s a r equi r ement or t he sol e, di sposi t i ve f act or under Dauber t ) ;

Wagner v. Hesst on Corp. , 450 F. 3d 756, 760 n. 8 ( 8t h Ci r . 2006)

( not i ng t hat l ack of t est i ng i s a "non- di sposi t i ve f actor ") ;

Wat ki ns v. Tel smi t h, I nc. , 121 F. 3d 984, 990 ( 5t h Ci r . 1997)

( "Test i ng i s not an ' absol ut e pr er equi si t e' t o t he admi ssi on of

expert t est i mony on al t ernat i ve desi gns, but Rul e 702 demands t hat

exper t s ' adher e t o t he same st andar ds of i nt el l ect ual r i gor t hat

ar e demanded i n t hei r pr of essi onal wor k. ' " ( quot i ng Cummi ns v.

Lyl e I ndus. , 93 F. 3d 362, 369 ( 7t h Ci r . 1996) ) ) ; Cummi ns, 93 F. 3d

at 369 ( "We do not mean to suggest , of cour se, t hat hands- on

t est i ng i s an absol ut e pr er equi si t e t o t he admi ssi on of exper t

t est i mony. ") . 8

8 Nei t her of t he r epor t ed appel l at e cases Ox Bodi es ci t eshol d t hat t est i ng i s a di sposi t i ve r equi r ement under Dauber tei t her . See Zar emba v. Gen. Mot or s Cor p. , 360 F. 3d 355 ( 2d Ci r .2004) ; Oddi v. For d Mot or Co. , 234 F. 3d 136 ( 3d Ci r . 2000) .Mor eover , unl i ke her e, t hose cases i nvol ved r evi ew of excl usi on ofexper t t est i mony. See Zaremba, 360 F. 3d at 35758; Oddi , 234 F. 3dat 156, 158. Ox Bodi es al so ci t es an unpubl i shed opi ni on of adi vi ded Tent h Ci r cui t panel t hat i s i r r el evant . See Hof f man v.


14/25

- 14 -

I n any event , t he r ecor d per mi t t ed a f act f i nder t o

concl ude t hat Ponder di d do some t est i ng, and her e, t he recor d

suppor t s t he magi st r at e j udge' s det er mi nat i on that t her e wer e

al t er nat e met hods of t est i ng f r om whi ch t he j ur y coul d eval uat e

r el i abi l i t y. See J ohnson, 484 F. 3d at 431. Fi r st , Ponder

t est i f i ed t hat he l ooked at "cr ash t est i nf or mat i on" f r om sever al

sour ces, i ncl udi ng a 1980 st udy avai l abl e f r om t he Nat i onal

Techni cal I nf or mat i on Syst em, "a number of pat ent s, " "cr ash t est

dat a f r om 1971 f r om Aer onaut i cal Resear ch Associ at es, " and ot her

cr ash t est s done under cont r act wi t h t he Nat i onal Hi ghway Tr af f i c

Saf et y Admi ni st r at i on ( "NHTSA") . Ox Bodi es ar gues t hat Ponder ' s

concl usi on r egar di ng t he guar d i n t he i nst ant case does not " f i t "

wi t h or f ol l ow f r om t he st udi es. I n i t s mot i on i n l i mi ne, Ox

Bodi es ar gued t hat t hose st udi es " eval uat ed i mpact s and f or ces

t hat wer e di f f er ent f r omt hose i nvol ved i n t hi s case. " But Ponder

t est i f i ed i n voi r di r e t hat at l east some of t he "i nf or mat i on i s

t r ansf er r abl e . . . [ t o] under r i de guar ds f or any t ype of vehi cl e. "

He expl ai ned i n r esponse t o a quest i on about cr ash- t est dat a asked

dur i ng hi s deposi t i on, f or exampl e, t hat "a 90- degr ee f r ont al t est

i s what NHTSA uses as conf i r mat i on f or cr ash wort hi ness and

For d Mot or Co. , 493 F. App' x 962, 97576 ( 10t h Ci r . 2012) ( f i ndi ngexper t t est i mony unr el i abl e wher e exper t di d not compar e hi sl abor at or y test r esul t s t o ei t her t he accel er at i ons on t he buckl ei n t he i nst ant acci dent or t o publ i shed r ol l over crash t est s, andi nconsi st ent l y cl ai med t her e was a l ack of r ol l over crash dat a) .


15/25

- 15 -

passenger saf et y i n cr ash t ypes - - al l cr ash t ypes. " Upon r evi ew

of t he ar gument s and document s i n t he r ecor d pr oper l y submi t t ed t o

us, 9 we cannot say t hat i t was an abuse of di scr et i on f or t he

magi st r at e j udge t o concl ude, as she di d at t r i al , t hat " [ Ponder ]

had enough dat a t hat di d not r equi r e hi mt o conduct f ur t her t est i ng

f or r esear ch t o base hi s opi ni ons on. "

Second, Ponder t est i f i ed t hat he test ed hi s desi gn usi ng

"st r ess cal cul at i on[ s] . " Cf . Lapsl ey, 689 F. 3d at 815 ( "A

mat hemat i cal or comput er model i s a per f ect l y accept abl e f or m of

t est . " ) . Hi s rel i ance i n par t on a Soci et y of Aut omot i ve Engi neer s

( "SAE") ar t i cl e, i n or der t o det er mi ne t he ener gy i nvol ved as wel l

as "compar[ e] t he damage t o [ t he SAE ar t i cl e' s] damage mat r i x

i ndex, " was appr opr i at e. 10 Ponder al so t est i f i ed t hat he per f or med

"photogr ammetr y anal ysi s" usi ng cal cul at i ons per f ormed by hand t o

t est how hi s desi gn woul d r eact upon i mpact .

9 We l i mi t our revi ew t o t hose document s i n t he r ecord.We wi l l not consi der supposed excer pt s f r om Ponder ' s not es t hatbot h Ox Bodi es and Qui l ez at t empt t o submi t t o t hi s cour t , asnei t her par t y i ndi cat es t hei r l ocat i on i n t he r ecor d bef or e t hemagi st r ate j udge, and we have not been abl e t o pi npoi nt any of

t hese r ef er ences.

10 On appeal , Ox Bodi es argues t hat because Ponder f ai l edt o i dent i f y any i ndust r y manuf act ur er or gover nment agency t hathas adopt ed hi s desi gn or a " si mi l ar " one, hi s desi gn l acks "peerr evi ew. " Ox Bodi es di d not r ai se t hi s exact ar gument i n i t s mot i oni n l i mi ne or at t r i al , and so i t i s wai ved. See Si er r a Cl ub v.Wagner , 555 F. 3d 21, 26 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .


16/25

- 16 -

Ox Bodi es cont ends t hat Ponder f ai l ed t o per f or m

cal cul at i ons i t s exper t sai d wer e necessar y i n t est i ng hi s desi gn.

However , as t he magi st r at e j udge cor r ect l y st at ed i n r ul i ng on Ox

Bodi es' mot i on i n l i mi ne, "Def endant s do not show t hat t hese

speci f i c t est s must have been car r i ed out t o pr ovi de a f oundat i on

f or Ponder ' s opi ni ons. " Mor eover , Ponder ' s r epor t and hi s

r esponses when quest i oned dur i ng hi s deposi t i on demonst r ate

suppor t f or hi s f i ndi ngs. We emphasi ze t hat i n most cases,

" [ v] i gor ous cr oss- exami nat i on, pr esent at i on of cont r ar y evi dence,

and car ef ul i nst r uct i on on t he bur den of pr oof ar e t he t r adi t i onal

and appr opr i at e means of at t acki ng shaky but admi ssi bl e evi dence. "

Dauber t , 509 U. S. at 596. And here, Ox Bodi es "had ampl e

opport uni t y to cr oss exami ne" Ponder "and t o use i t s own expert

wi t ness - - whi ch i t di d. " Di ef enbach v. Sher i dan Tr ansp. , 229

F. 3d 27, 31 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) .

Fi nal l y, on appeal Ox Bodi es argues t hat Ponder di d not

show t hat hi s al t er nat i ve desi gn woul d have "wi t hst ood t he f or ce

of t he crash" and woul d have pr event ed i nt r usi on i nt o t he passenger

compart ment , or t hat t he al t ernat i ve desi gn guard woul d have caused

"t he J eep t o r ot at e away f r om t he t r uck on i mpact , r at her t han

cont i nui ng f ur t her i nt o t he t r ash body. " Ox Bodi es di d not r ai se

t hese obj ect i ons i n i t s mot i on i n l i mi ne or i n i t s obj ect i ons at

t r i al . Ar guabl y, t he cont ent i on i s wai ved. Si er r a Cl ub v. Wagner ,

555 F. 3d 21, 26 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . But even assumi ng t hat t he more


17/25

- 17 -

gener al ar gument - - t hat Ponder has not shown t hat hi s al t er nat i ve

desi gn woul d have pr event ed Mar i bel ' s i nj ur i es - - was pr oper l y

r ai sed, t hat ar gument goes t o t he cr edi bi l i t y of hi s t est i mony

t hat t he desi gn was "saf er . " As t hese ar gument s wer e appr opr i at e

t o make t o t he j ur y when i t wei ghed t he evi dence, t hey do not l ead

us t o concl ude t hat t he t est i mony' s admi ssi on was i n er r or .

I n shor t , admi t t i ng Ponder ' s t est i mony on al t er nat i ve

desi gn was not a "meani ngf ul er r or i n j udgment , " Rui z- Troche, 161

F. 3d at 83 ( quot i ng Ander son v. Cr yovac, I nc. , 862 F. 2d 910, 923

( 1st Ci r . 1988) ) , and we af f i r mt he magi st r at e j udge' s deci si on t o

admi t hi s t est i mony.

I I I .

The sol e i ssue i n Qui l ez' s appeal i s whet her t he

magi st r at e j udge er r ed by not hol di ng Ox Bodi es j oi nt l y and

several l y l i abl e11 f or t he ent i r e $6, 000, 000 damages award. That

deci si on was based on a par t i cul ar r eadi ng of t he Puer t o Ri co

Supr eme Cour t ' s deci si ons i n Cor t i j o Wal ker v. P. R. Wat er Res.

Aut h. , 91 P. R. 557 ( 1964) ; Wi dow of Andi no v. P. R. Wat er Res.

Aut h. , 93 P. R. 168 ( 1966) ; and Rosar i o Cr espo v. P. R. Wat er Res.

Aut h. , 94 P. R. 799 ( 1967) . SeeQui l ez- Vel ar , 2015 WL 898255, at

*2- 3. On our r eadi ng, t hose pr ecedent s do not cl ear l y answer t he

11 J oi nt and sever al l i abi l i t y somet i mes goes by t he name"sol i dar y" l i abi l i t y i n Puer t o Ri co. Ramos v. Capar r a Dai r y, I nc. ,16 P. R. Of f i c. Tr ans. 78, 81 ( 1985) .


18/25

- 18 -

quest i on at hand, and t he quest i on r ai ses i mpor t ant publ i c pol i cy

concer ns. Because t he i ssue i s det er mi nat i ve of Qui l ez' s appeal ,

we f i nd " t he pr udent cour se i s t o cer t i f y t he quest i on t o t hat

cour t bet t er sui t ed t o addr ess t he i ssue. "12 Pagn- Col n v.

Wal gr eens of San Pat r i ci o, I nc. , 697 F. 3d 1, 18 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

We expl ai n, wi t hout i n any sense meani ng t o i nf l uence t he out come.

The under l yi ng assumpt i on of t he magi st r at e j udge' s

r easoni ng i s t hat Ox Bodi es had no r i ght of cont r i but i on agai nst

t he Muni ci pal i t y of San J uan and t hat i t necessar i l y f ol l owed t hat

Qui l ez coul d not r ecover t he sum of $6, 000, 000 agai nst Ox Bodi es

on a j oi nt and sever al l i abi l i t y t heor y. Ther e ar e many quest i ons,

as di scussed bel ow, about whet her cont r i but i on i s or i s not

avai l abl e, and whet her t he r easoni ng t yi ng t he exi st ence of

cont r i but i on t o t he exi st ence of j oi nt and sever al l i abi l i t y i s

val i d under Puer t o Ri co l aw. Qui l ez posi t s t hat even i f Ox Bodi es

does not have a r i ght of cont r i but i on, Ox Bodi es i s nonet hel ess

r esponsi bl e t o Qui l ez as a j oi nt l y and sever al l y l i abl e def endant .

That i s, t he muni ci pal cap does not excuse Ox Bodi es f r om payi ng

t he sum of $6, 000, 000; and so, i t cannot have t he ef f ect of

shi f t i ng t he r i sk of non- payment of t he f ul l sum t o Qui l ez.

12 At or al ar gument , t he par t i es agr eed t hat t hi s cour tcoul d cer t i f y t he i ssue, and we subsequent l y af f or ded t hem anoppor t uni t y t o pr opose l anguage f or t he cer t i f i cat i on quest i on.


19/25

- 19 -

The magi st r at e j udge' s Mar ch 3, 2015, or der r ead t he

Puer t o Ri co Supr eme Cour t ' s deci si on i n Cor t i j o Wal ker , whi ch

di sal l owed a t hi r d- par t y sui t by a def endant agai nst a pl ai nt i f f ' s

empl oyer covered by Puert o Ri co' s workmen' s compensat i on st atut e,

91 P. R. at 559, 566, t o pr ecl ude Ox Bodi es f r om seeki ng

cont r i but i on f r om t he Muni ci pal i t y of San J uan. Qui l ez- Vel ar ,

2015 WL 898255, at *2. Then, t he magi st r ate j udge hel d t hat , under

Wi dow of Andi no and Rosar i o Cr espo, where "a def endant ' s general

r i ght t o cont r i but i on i s l ost due t o a j oi nt - t or t f easor ' s st at ut or y

i mmuni t y, " 2015 WL 898255, at *2, i n a t ort act i on a "def endant

shoul d be hel d l i abl e f or t he damage onl y i n pr opor t i on t o i t s

f aul t , " i d. at *3 ( quot i ng Wi dow of Andi no, 93 P. R. at 180) ; see

Rosar i o- Cr espo, 94 P. R. at 813. 13 Ox Bodi es ur ges us t o af f i r m

based on thi s r easoni ng.

13 I n a pr evi ous or der , t he magi st r at e j udge al so hel d t hatPuer t o Ri co woul d l i kel y f ol l ow Rest at ement ( Thi r d) of Tor t s:Pr oduct s Li abi l i t y 16 ( Am. Law I nst . 1998) , such t hat when ani nj ur y i s i ndi vi s i bl e, i f a pl ai nt i f f shows that a def ect i vel ydesi gned pr oduct "i s a subst ant i al f act or i n i ncreasi ng t hepl ai nt i f f ' s har m beyond t hat whi ch woul d have r esul t ed f r om ot hercauses, t he pr oduct sel l er i s subj ect t o l i abi l i t y f or . . .pl ai nt i f f ' s har m at t r i but abl e t o t he def ect and ot her causes" andi s "l i abl e wi t h ot her par t i es who bear l egal r esponsi bi l i t y f or

causi ng t he har m, det er mi ned by appl i cabl e rul es of j oi nt andsever al l i abi l i t y. " Rest at ement ( Thi r d) of Tor t s: Pr od. Li ab. 16 ( Am. Law I nst . 1998) ; see Qui l ez- Vel ar v. Ox Bodi es, I nc. , No.CI V. 12- 1780, 2015 WL 418156, at *1, *2 ( D. P. R. Feb. 2, 2015) .Nei t her par t y has chal l enged t hi s pr edi cat e concl usi on of l aw. Wei nvi t e t he Puer t o Ri co Supr eme Cour t t o wei gh i n on t hi s poi nt , i fi t chooses t o do so, i n t he cour se of answer i ng our cer t i f i edquest i on.


20/25

- 20 -

Qui l ez di sput es bot h st eps i n t he cour t ' s r easoni ng.

Qui l ez ar gues t hat t he cap on muni ci pal damages at i ssue here i s

not anal ogous t o the workmen' s compensat i on st atut e' s r emedi al

r est r i ct i on i n Cor t i j o Wal ker . Thi s vi ew, accor di ng t o Qui l ez,

f i nds some suppor t i n t he st at ut or y t ext . The st at ut or y scheme i n

Cor t i j o Wal ker was a workmen' s compensat i on scheme bar r i ng al l

t or t act i ons agai nst cover ed empl oyer s. See Cor t i j o Wal ker , 91

P. R. at 560 ( quot i ng the Workmen' s Acci dent Compensat i on Act of

1935, 20, whi ch est abl i shed t hat compensat i on under t he Act

"shal l be t he onl y r emedy agai nst t he empl oyer " ) . I n cont r ast ,

t he muni ci pal damages cap codi f i ed at P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 21,

4704 per mi t s l i abi l i t y i n "[ c] l ai ms agai nst muni ci pal i t i es f or

personal or pr opert y damages caused by the f aul t or negl i gence of

t he muni ci pal i t y" up t o a cer t ai n amount , i n t hi s case up t o t he

"t he col l ect i bl e i ndemni t y act ual l y pr ovi ded" by the Muni ci pal i t y

of San J uan' s i nsur ance pol i cy, P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 26, 2004.

See Qui l ez- Vel ar , 2015 WL 898255, at *2 n. 2. Ot her j ur i sdi ct i ons

have r ecogni zed t hi s t ype of muni ci pal damages cap as a par t i al

wai ver of sover ei gn i mmuni t y. See, e. g. , Mor r i s v. Mass. Mar .

Acad. , 565 N. E. 2d 422, 428 ( Mass. 1991) ( "The [ government al

l i abi l i t y] l i mi t at i on i s cont ai ned i n t he same sent ence i n whi ch

sover ei gn i mmuni t y i s wai ved. . . . The cap i s one t er m of t he

wai ver . " ) . I n t hi s case, t her e i s an ar gument t hat because t he

muni ci pal damages cap oper at es di f f er ent l y t han t he remedi al


21/25


22/25

- 22 -

choi ce t o "pr ot ect [ ] . . . t he muni ci pal f i sc" and any r i ght t o

cont r i but i on as a f or bi dden at t empt t o i ndi r ect l y get at t hat f i sc.

See Qui l ez- Vel ar , 2015 WL 898255, at *2.

Qui l ez suggest s t hat Ox Bodi es has mi sunder st ood Cor t i j o

Wal ker ' s r easoni ng, suggest i ng t hat t he quot ed l anguage i s di ct a,

and t he cour t ' s hol di ng act ual l y r esi des i n t he pr ecedi ng

par agr aph. Ther e, t he Cor t i j o Wal ker cour t r easoned t hat t he r i ght

t o cont r i but i on was l acki ng because under t he par t i cul ar st at ut or y

scheme - - t he wor kmen' s compensat i on st atut e - - " [ t ] he empl oyer i s

not l i abl e t o t he wor kman i n t or t , " and so "he cannot be a j oi nt

t or t f easor wi t h t he t hi r d per son and t hi r d- par t y pl ai nt i f f . " 91

P. R. at 564. The cour t expl ai ned t hat t he def endant l acked a r i ght

of cont r i but i on agai nst t he pl ai nt i f f ' s empl oyer because "[ t ] he

wor kman' s cl ai m or r emedy agai nst hi s empl oyer i s sol el y f or t he

stat ut or y benef i t s; hi s cl ai m agai nst t he t hi r d par t y i s f or

damages. Bot h causes of act i on ar e i n l aw di f f er ent i n ki nd and

t hey cannot r esul t i n a common l egal l i abi l i t y. " I d. Qui l ez

ar gues t hat Cor t i j o Wal ker ' s r easoni ng i s i napposi t e, as t he act i on

her e agai nst Ox Bodi es and t he thi r d- par t y act i on agai nst t he

Muni ci pal i t y of San J uan bot h seek damages based i n t or t ; t he

magi st r at e j udge has det er mi ned t he Muni ci pal i t y of San J uan t o be

a j oi nt - t or t f easor , see Qui l ez- Vel ar v. Ox Bodi es, I nc. , No. CI V.

12- 1780, 2015 WL 418156, at *2 ( D. P. R. Feb. 2, 2015) ; Qui l ez-

Vel ar , 2015 WL 898255, at *2, and Ox Bodi es has not cont est ed t hat


23/25

- 23 -

r ul i ng. Qui l ez suggest s t hat pr acti cal i nabi l i t y t o obt ai n

cont r i but i on - - her e because of a deposi t wi t h t he Puer t o Ri co

cour t t hat onl y by happenst ance pr eceded j udgment i n t he f ederal

sui t - - poses a l egal quest i on concer ni ng pr oper al l ocat i on of

r i sk of non- payment f r oma l i abl e def endant , not concer ni ng whet her

Ox Bodi es i s unabl e t o seek cont r i but i on because of some ki nd of

i mmuni t y.

Qui l ez al so vi ews t he magi st r at e j udge' s subsequent

r el i ance on Wi dow of Andi no and Rosar i o Cr espo f or t he rul e that

a "def endant shoul d be hel d l i abl e f or t he damage onl y i n

pr opor t i on t o i t s f aul t , " Wi dow of Andi no, 93 P. R. at 180; see

Rosar i o- Cr espo, 94 P. R. at 813, as mi spl aced. 15 See Qui l ez- Vel ar ,

2015 WL 898255, at *2. Qui l ez asser t s t hat Puert o Ri co case l aw

al most al ways pr i or i t i zes a pl ai nt i f f ' s r ecover y t hr ough j oi nt and

several l i abi l i t y. J oi nt and several l i abi l i t y i s " [ t ] he wel l -

15 The magi st r at e j udge st at ed t hat "[ i ] t shoul d be not edt hat t he Supr eme Cour t ' s hol di ngs i n Wi dow of Andi no and Rosar i o-Cr espo were not based on any l anguage i n t he workers' compensat i onst at ut e. " Qui l ez- Vel ar , 2015 WL 898255, at *2. Bot h Wi dow ofAndi no and Rosar i o Cr espo expl i ci t l y r el y on Cor t i j o Wal ker ' sr eadi ng of t he workmen' s compensat i on st atut e as not permi t t i ng anempl oyer t o be hel d l i abl e i n expl ai ni ng why a def endant shoul d be

hel d l i abl e onl y f or i t s pr opor t i on of f aul t . See Rosar i o- Cr espo,94 P. R. at 81213; Wi dow of Andi no, 93 P. R. at 17980 ( di scussi ngt he operat i on of workmen' s compensat i on empl oyer r emedi alr est r i ct i on t o "absol ut e[ l y] " pr ecl ude r ecover y f r omt he empl oyer ,bef or e hol di ng t hat "[ i ] n vi ew of t he f or egoi ng, and of t he f actt hat t hi s case i s gover ned by the speci al Act on t he mat t er ,def endant shoul d be hel d l i abl e f or t he damage onl y i n pr opor t i onto i t s f aul t " ) .


24/25

- 24 -

known r ul e. " Szendr ey v. Hospi care, I nc. , 2003 TSPR 18, 2003 WL

751582 ( P. R. Feb. 14, 2003) ; see Rui z- Troche, 161 F. 3d at 87

( appl yi ng Puer t o Ri co l aw) ; Ramos v. Capar r a Dai r y, I nc. , 16 P. R.

Of f i c. Tr ans. 78, 8182 ( 1985) . Qui l ez acknowl edges t hat t he r i ght

t o cont r i but i on est abl i shes t hat " t he oner ous ef f ect bet ween t he

j oi nt t or t f easor s shoul d be di st r i but ed i n propor t i on t o t hei r

r espect i ve degr ee of negl i gence, " Szendr ey, 2003 WL 751582, but ,

i n t he usual case, Qui l ez argues, t he r i sk of non- payment of one

debt or i s pl aced on t he def endant s, not t he pl ai nt i f f , i d. The

t heor y i s t hat even i f Ox Bodi es l acks a r i ght of cont r i but i on - -

ei t her i n f act or i n l aw - - t he gener al r ul e of j oi nt and sever al

l i abi l i t y shoul d appl y. No Puer t o Ri co Supr eme Cour t case ci t ed

by t he par t i es r esol ves t hi s i ssue, whi ch t he par t i es al so concede.

Ul t i mat el y, "we l ack ' suf f i ci ent gui dance t o al l ow us

r easonabl y t o pr edi ct ' whi ch of our . . . opt i ons t he Puer t o Ri co

Supr eme Cour t woul d choose, " Car r asqui l l o- Or t i z v. Am. Ai r l i nes,

I nc. , 812 F. 3d 195, 199200 ( 1st Ci r . 2016) ( quot i ng Pagn- Col n,

697 F. 3d at 18) . Because t he al l ocat i on of r i sk i s an i mpor t ant

quest i on of Puer t o Ri co t or t l aw, i t i s det er mi nat i ve of t he appeal

at i ssue, and t he pr ecedent s avai l abl e ar e not cl ear , we thi nk t he

bet t er cour se i s t o cer t i f y t he quest i on i n accor dance wi t h t he

r ul es of t he Puer t o Ri co Supr eme Cour t .


25/25

I V.

We af f i r m t he magi st r at e j udge' s deci si on t o admi t t he

t est i mony of Qui l ez' s exper t . We di r ect ent r y of j udgment agai nst

Ox Bodi es' appeal .

As t o Qui l ez' s appeal , we her eby cer t i f y t o t he Supr eme

Cour t of Puer t o Ri co t he f ol l owi ng quest i on:

Was t he magi st r at e j udge cor r ect i n t hi s caset o l i mi t t he damages agai nst Ox Bodi es t o$1, 200, 000 and deny Qui l ez a j oi nt and sever aldamages award of $6, 000, 000 agai nst Ox Bodi es?

We wel come t he opi ni on of t he Puer t o Ri co Supreme Cour t on any

ot her aspect of Puer t o Ri co l aw t hat t he J ust i ces bel i eve shoul d

be cl ar i f i ed i n or der t o assi st i n t he r esol ut i on of t he cer t i f i ed

quest i on or t o gi ve cont ext t o t hei r r epl y.

The Cl er k of t hi s cour t i s di r ect ed t o f or war d t o t he

Supr eme Cour t of Puer t o Ri co, under t he of f i ci al seal of t hi s

cour t , a copy of t he cer t i f i ed quest i on and t hi s opi ni on, al ong

wi t h a copy of t he br i ef s and appendi ces f i l ed by t he par t i es. We

r et ai n j ur i sdi ct i on over Qui l ez' s appeal pendi ng t hat cour t ' s

det er mi nat i on.

quilez-velar v. ox bodies, inc., 1st cir. (2016)

Documents