## Facts

- A GM van carrying University of Kansas debate team members and coaches was traveling on an interstate near Clarksville, Tennessee, when the driver swerved to avoid a deer.
- During the maneuver, the van’s rear brakes locked, the driver lost control, and the van left the roadway and rolled multiple times.
- David MacDonald was killed; Peter Cannistra was rendered paraplegic; Ofray Hall and Susan Stanfield suffered serious injuries.
- Plaintiffs sued the University of Kansas and its employees for negligence and later added General Motors Corporation (GM) on product-liability theories.
- Plaintiffs alleged GM (1) failed to provide adequate warnings/instructions regarding brake maintenance and (2) defectively designed the braking system because it could become “rear-biased,” causing rear-wheel lockup before front-wheel lockup under some conditions.
- Claims against the University of Kansas and its employees settled; the case proceeded to trial against GM alone.
- A jury found GM liable but allocated fault 1% to GM and 99% to the University of Kansas and its employees.
- The district court applied Kansas law to cap nonpecuniary wrongful-death damages for the MacDonald claim.

## Issues

1. Whether statements by GM’s counsel during opening constituted judicial admissions barring GM from introducing evidence of negligence by the University of Kansas and its employees.
2. Whether Kansas or North Dakota law governed the measure of damages for the MacDonalds’ wrongful-death claim.
3. Whether the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law such that GM was entitled to judgment as a matter of law (JMOL).

## Decision

- The court held GM’s opening remarks were not binding judicial admissions and affirmed the admission of evidence concerning negligence of the University of Kansas and its employees.
- The court reversed the damages choice-of-law ruling and held North Dakota law governed the MacDonalds’ wrongful-death damages.
- The court affirmed the denial of GM’s JMOL motion, finding sufficient evidence to support the verdict against GM.
- Disposition: affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to apply North Dakota law to the wrongful-death damages measure.

## Legal Principles

- Statements in opening argument generally are not judicial admissions; to bind a party, a purported admission must be a deliberate, clear, and unequivocal concession of fact rather than rhetorical or predictive advocacy.
- In a diversity case, the forum state’s conflict-of-laws rules govern; under a “most significant relationship”/interest-analysis approach, damages-cap questions in wrongful-death actions are treated as loss-distribution issues for which the decedent’s domicile (and related state interests) is a primary connecting factor.
- JMOL is improper where, viewing the evidence in the nonmovant’s favor, a reasonable jury could find product defect or failure to warn and causation.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit allowed GM to introduce third-party negligence evidence despite its opening statement, required application of North Dakota law to the wrongful-death damages measure, and upheld the jury’s liability finding against GM by affirming denial of JMOL.


MacDonald v. Gen. Motors Corp., 110 F.3d 337 (6th Cir. 1997)