## Facts

- Christopher Kudlacek was a passenger in a Fiat X1/9 driven by Arlan Broome, Jr.; after Broome swerved to avoid an animal, the car left the roadway, went down an embankment, rolled, and struck an object.
- Broome had no memory of events after the car left the roadway.
- Christopher sustained catastrophic brain injuries resulting in permanent total disability.
- His parents, acting as guardians and conservators, sued Fiat S.p.A. and Fiat Motors of North America, Inc. under negligence and strict products liability theories.
- Plaintiffs advanced two main liability theories:
  - Crashworthiness/enhanced-injury: defects in occupant protection allegedly increased injuries in the rollover/side-impact sequence.
  - Handling stability/failure to warn: the X1/9 allegedly had dangerous handling characteristics (transition from understeer to oversteer) and Fiat failed to warn.
- Fiat presented an engineer who conducted track tests on the accident X1/9 and other sporty vehicles and showed test videotapes to support that the X1/9 handled comparably; plaintiffs argued test conditions differed.
- Plaintiffs offered accident reconstruction testimony using a computer simulation; Fiat argued it assumed driver actions inconsistent with Broome’s account.
- The trial court directed a verdict for Fiat on crashworthiness (negligence and strict liability), submitted handling/failure-to-warn to the jury, admitted Fiat’s test videos, instructed on Nebraska’s statutory state-of-the-art defense, and admitted plaintiffs’ simulation evidence.
- The jury returned a defense verdict for Fiat on the handling/failure-to-warn theories.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of enhanced injury and causation to submit the crashworthiness claim to the jury.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting comparative handling-test videotapes and testimony despite differences in test conditions.
3. Whether the trial court erred in submitting and instructing the jury on the statutory state-of-the-art defense under Nebraska products liability law.
4. Whether the trial court erred in admitting plaintiffs’ accident reconstruction computer simulation based on disputed assumptions.
5. Whether Fiat was entitled to a directed verdict (including on strict liability) on the handling-stability/failure-to-warn claims due to insufficient evidence.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the directed verdict for Fiat on crashworthiness, holding plaintiffs failed to provide competent evidence permitting a reasonable determination of enhanced injury attributable to the alleged defect.
- The court affirmed admission of Fiat’s comparative handling-test evidence, concluding substantial similarity (not identity) is required and dissimilarities generally affect weight, not admissibility.
- The court affirmed the state-of-the-art jury instruction, finding it consistent with the statute when read as a whole and not misleading or burden-shifting.
- On Fiat’s cross-appeal, the court affirmed admission of plaintiffs’ computer simulation, treating disputes about assumptions as matters for cross-examination and weight.
- The court affirmed denial of Fiat’s directed-verdict motions on handling/failure-to-warn, holding the conflicting expert evidence created jury questions.

## Legal Principles

- Crashworthiness/enhanced-injury liability requires evidence from which a jury can reasonably determine the injury that would have occurred absent the alleged defect and the additional injury attributable to the defect; speculation is insufficient.
- A directed verdict is appropriate only when reasonable minds can reach but one conclusion; conflicts in expert evidence are ordinarily for the jury.
- Experimental or demonstrative evidence is admissible if conditions are substantially similar to the matter in issue; differences typically go to weight rather than admissibility, particularly when the evidence is not offered as an accident reenactment.
- State-of-the-art compliance may be submitted to the jury as a statutory defense in Nebraska products liability actions, so long as instructions accurately reflect the statute and do not mislead the jury.
- Expert computer simulations may be admitted when based on data reasonably relied upon in the field and when assumptions are disclosed and subject to cross-examination; disputes over assumptions generally affect weight, not admissibility.

## Conclusion

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed a complete defense judgment for Fiat, holding the crashworthiness claim failed for lack of proof enabling a non-speculative finding of enhanced injury, and upholding the trial court’s rulings admitting comparative test evidence and computer simulation testimony, instructing on the state-of-the-art defense, and submitting the handling-stability and failure-to-warn theories to the jury.


Kudlacek v. Fiat S.p.A., 509 N.W.2d 603 (Neb. 1994)