Updike v. American Honda Motor Company Incorporated et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Steven Updike,
Plaintiff,
v.
American Honda Motor Company
Incorporated,
Defendant.
No. CV-21-01379-PHX-ROS
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant American Hoda Motor Co.’s “Motion in Limine to
Limit Plaintiff’s Cumulative and Irrelevant Damages Evidence.” (Doc. 212). Defendant
seeks exclusion of “evidence of damages that fall outside the scope of what is recoverable
in a wrongful death suit.” To this end, Defendant asks the Court to “either (a) limit[] the
number of damage witnesses [P]laintiff may call, or (b) limit[] the amount of time
[P]laintiff has to present testimony on damages.” The Motion will be granted in part and
denied in part.
Statutory beneficiaries in a wrongful death suit include “the surviving husband or
wife, child, parent or guardian.” A.R.S. § 12-612. If there are no surviving statutory
beneficiaries, the action may be brought by the decedent’s personal representative on
behalf of the decedent’s estate. Damages are limited to compensation for “injury resulting
from the death.” A.R.S. § 12-613. Both economic and non-economic damages such as
“anguish, sorrow, stress, mental suffering, pain and shock,” City of Tucson v. Wondergem,
466 P.2d 383, 387, are available, but must pertain only to the individual beneficiaries, not
Case 2:21-cv-01379-ROS Document 222 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the estate. Evidence regarding the “manner of…death” may be relevant “insofar as [it]
may have added to [the] wrongful death plaintiff’s anguish resulting from the death, as
opposed to anguish caused by knowledge of premortem pain suffered by the decedent.”
Girouard v. Skyline Steel, Inc., 158 P.3d 255, 259-60 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (emphasis
added).
Plaintiff correctly notes they bear the burden of proof as to the unique damages of
each wrongful death beneficiary and, as such, Plaintiff is entitled to present the testimony
of each beneficiary and, to the extent it remains corroborative rather than cumulative, the
testimony of third parties. That testimony, however, must be limited to that within “the
scope of what is recoverable in a wrongful death suit” (Doc. 212 at 2).
Evidence regarding the manner of death in this case may be relevant to damages to
the extent “it reflects [the beneficiaries’] mental anguish from the manner of death, rather
than the suffering of the decedent and any balancing under Rule 403.” Girouard. But “to
the extent the evidence of manner of death [deals] with premortem pain and suffering, it is
irrelevant” in a wrongful death suit. In this case, while the knowledge that the decedent’s
“manner of death was slow and painful” and “the shock and mental anguish of seeing Jim
as a paralyzed, fragile, and unrecognizable man, unable to breathe on his own, but alert,
agitated, and in pain” (Doc. 219 at 7) are unquestionably real and agonizing, they are not
legally compensable in a wrongful death suit as they constitute injury arising from the
decedent experiencing premortem pain and suffering. As such, this testimony may be
excluded as irrelevant to the issue of damages.
Any testimony must be based upon personal knowledge and relate to the injury of
the beneficiaries resulting from the death. The opinions of any third parties giving their
testimony on the impact of the death on the beneficiaries must come from personal
knowledge, not hearsay, and meet the rigorous requirements of Federal Rule of evidence
701.
///
///
Case 2:21-cv-01379-ROS Document 222 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS ORDERED the Motion in Limine to Limit Plaintiff’s Cumulative and
Irrelevant Damages Evidence (Doc. 212) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Dated this 30th day of January, 2026.
Honorable Roslyn O. Silver
Senior United States District Judge
Case 2:21-cv-01379-ROS Document 222 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 3