Victor & Marie Perkins v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 596 F.2d 681 (5th Cir. 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
Victor & Marie Perkins v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 596 F.2d 681 (5th Cir. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
77 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 21 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States of America, ex rel. v. Sightpath Medical, Inc. (mnd, 2023-01-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States of America, ex rel. v. Sightpath Medical, Inc.
D. Minnesota · 2023 · confidence medium
Courts have regularly held that current employees of an opposing party constitute witnesses “identified with an adverse party.” See, e.g., Haney v. Mizell Mem’l Hosp., 744 F.2d 1467, 1478 (11th Cir. 1984); Perkins v. Volkswagon of Am., Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir. 1979).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Walker v. Caldwell
N.D. Miss. · 2022 · confidence medium
A district judge’s decision in this regard “will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is manifestly erroneous.” Jd. (quoting Perkins v, Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (Sth Cir.1979)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dow v. Oldendorff Carriers GMBH & Co.
5th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
“The admission or exclusion of expert testimony is a matter left to the discretion of the trial judge, and his or her decision will not be disturbed unless it is manifestly erroneous.” Perkins v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir.1979) (citing Salem v. U.S. Lines Co., 370 U.S. 31, 34 , 82 S.Ct. 1119 , 8 L.Ed.2d 313 (1962)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Benton v. Ford Motor Co.
S.D. Ohio · 2007 · confidence medium
Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir.1979).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ellipsis, Inc. v. the Color Works, Inc.
W.D. Tenn. · 2006 · confidence medium
Co., 105 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir.1997); Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir.1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jarvis v. Ford Motor Co.
S.D.N.Y. · 1999 · confidence medium
Judge Weinstein cited to a Fifth Circuit case, Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir.1979), which affirmed the entry of a directed verdict where the plaintiffs expert was not qualified to testify as to automobile design defects and plaintiff failed to establish causation.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Suarez Matos v. Ashford Presbyterian Community Hospital, Inc.
1st Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Community College, 874 F.2d 359, 368 (6th Cir.1989), as, for example, an employee, Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir.1979), or a defendant’s girlfriend, United States v. Hicks, 748 F.2d 854 (4th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Suarez Matos v. Corporacion Insular
1st Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Community College, 874 F.2d 359, 368 (6th Cir. 1989), _______________________ -8- as, for example, an employee, Perkins v. Volkswagen of _______ ______________ America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir. 1979), or a ______________ defendant's girlfriend, United States v. Hicks, 748 F.2d 854 _____________ _____ (4th Cir. 1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Louise Evans v. Mathis Funeral Home, Inc.
11th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Salem v. United States Lines Co., 370 U.S. 31, 35 , 82 S.Ct. 1119, 1122 , 8 L.Ed.2d 313 (1962); Polston v. Boomershine Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc., 952 F.2d 1304, 1309 (11th Cir.1992); Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir.1979).
cited Cited as authority (rule) ca11 1992
11th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Salem v. United States Lines Co., 370 U.S. 31, 35 , 82 S.Ct. 1119, 1122 , 8 L.Ed.2d 313 (1962); Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir.1979).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Polston v. Boomershine Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc.
11th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Salem v. United States Lines Co., 370 U.S. 31, 35 , 82 S.Ct. 1119, 1122 , 8 L.Ed.2d 313 (1962); Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir.1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John Boyle v. Pool Offshore Company
5th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
It is, of course, well-settled that "[t]he admission or exclusion of expert testimony is a matter left to the discretion of the trial judge and his or her discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is manifestly erroneous." Smogor v. Enke, 874 F.2d 295, 297 (5th Cir.1989) (quoting Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir.1979)). 38 The record reveals that Broussard was admitted as an expert on the "limited aspect of mud hose operation." Before the district court accepted Broussard as an expert, Broussard testified that he had received formal training in cran…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Boyle v. Pool Offshore Co., A Division of Enserch Corp.
5th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
It is, of course, well-settled that “[t]he admission or exclusion of expert testimony is a matter left to the discretion of the trial judge and his or her discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is manifestly erroneous.” Smogor v. Enke, 874 F.2d 295, 297 (5th Cir.1989) (quoting Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir.1979)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Garland MELTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEERE & COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee (2×)
5th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
The district court excluded this proposed testimony. 23 "The admission or exclusion of expert testimony is a matter left to the discretion of the trial judge and his or her decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is manifestly erroneous." Smogor v. Enke, 874 F.2d 295, 297 (5th Cir.1989) (quoting Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir.1979)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Margaret J. Smogor, Etc. v. Russell A. Enke, M.D.
5th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
“The admission or exclusion of expert testimony is a matter left to the discretion of the trial judge, and his or her decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is manifestly erroneous.” Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir.1979).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Allen Peteet, Ann I. Greenhill, Individually and on Behalf of the Heirs of the Estate of James Edward Greenhill, Deceased v. Dow Chemical Company
5th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir.1979)); Page v. Barko Hydraulics, 673 F.2d 134, 139 (5th Cir.1982); see Bauman v. Centex Corp., 611 F.2d 1115, 1120 (5th Cir.1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) West Wind Africa Line, Ltd. v. Corpus Christi Marine Services Company, and Saber Petroleum Corp.
5th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
Ray McDermott & Co., 734 F.2d 1110, 1115 (5th Cir.1984); Perkins v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir. 1979). 7 . — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 2494 , 96 L.Ed.2d 385 (1987). 8 . (a)(1) Except as otherwise provided by law, a witness in attendance at any court of the United States ... or before any person authorized to take his deposition pursuant to any rule or order of a court of the United States, shall be paid the fees and allowances provided by this section. 9 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Phillips Oil Company v. Okc Corporation
5th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
“The admission or exclusion of expert testimony is a matter left to the discretion of the trial judge, and his or her decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is manifestly erroneous.” Perkins v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir.1979) (citing Fed.R.Evid. 702); see also Vallot v. Central Gulf Lines, Inc., 641 F.2d 347, 350 (5th Cir. Unit A April 1981). 32 In this case, the decision of the trial court to admit expert testimony clearly does not require reversal.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ca5 1986
5th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
The district judge's action "will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is manifestly erroneous." Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir.1979). 66 George Greene was trained as an engineer and had worked in engineering for more than twenty years.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Koonce v. Quaker Safety Products & Manufacturing Co.
5th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
The district judge’s action “will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is manifestly erroneous.” Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir. 1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Liona Corp. v. PCH Associates (In Re PCH Associates)
S.D.N.Y. · 1986 · confidence medium
See Salem v. United States Lines Co., 370 U.S. 31, 35 , 82 S.Ct. 1119, 1122 , 8 L.Ed.2d 313 (1962); Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir.1979); see also 3 Weinstein’s Evidence ¶ 704[02] at 704-16 (1985) (“[E]xclusion on 704 grounds [of testimony as to a legal issue] is almost never justified.”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) ca5 1986
5th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir.1979); Barnes v. General Motors Corp., 547 F.2d 275, 278 (5th Cir.1977).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dawsey v. Olin Corp.
5th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir. 1979); Barnes v. General Motors Corp., 547 F.2d 275, 278 (5th Cir.1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mary Rodriguez v. Olin Corporation, and Third Party v. Hunter Chemicals, Inc., Smith Valve Corporation, Third Party
3rd Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
OLIN-SMITH It is well settled that “the trial judge has broad discretion in the matter of the admission or exclusion of expert evidence, and his action is to be sustained unless manifestly erroneous.” Salem v. United States Lines Co., 370 U.S. 31, 35 , 82 S.Ct. 1119, 1122 , 8 L.Ed.2d 313, 317 (1962); Vallot v. Central Gulf Lines, Inc., 641 F.2d 347, 350 (5th Cir.1981) (Unit A); Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir.1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harry Holmes v. J. Ray McDermott & Company, Inc.
5th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
As an initial matter, we note that “[t]he admission or exclusion of expert testimony is a matter left to the discretion of the trial judge, and his or her decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is manifestly erroneous.” Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir.1979) (citing Salem v. United States Lines Co., 370 U.S. 31 , 82 S.Ct. 1119 , 8 L.Ed.2d 313 (1962)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ernest E. Adams v. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation
5th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion, see Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir.1979), in excluding the cancer evidence.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Donald Lorrin Cronn
5th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
Salem v. United States Lines Co., 370 U.S. 31, 35 , 82 S.Ct. 1119, 1122 , 8 L.Ed.2d 313 (1962); Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir.1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Janet Lynn Grindstaff, a Minor by Douglas Grindstaff, as Next Friend v. Blanche D. Coleman, M.D.
11th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
United States v. Huber, 603 F.2d 387, 399 (2d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 927 , 100 S.Ct. 1312 , 63 L.Ed.2d 759 (1980); Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. King, 532 F.2d 505 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 690 , 97 S.Ct. 384 , 50 L.Ed.2d 327 (1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Michael M. Garwood v. International Paper Company
5th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
E.g., Taylor v. Ouachita Parish School Board, 648 F.2d 959, 970 (5th Cir. 1981); Vallot v. Central Gulf Lines, Inc., 641 F.2d 347, 350 (5th Cir. 1981); Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir. 1979); 3 Weinstein’s Evidence 1702[02], at 702-12 (1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) James H. VALLOT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CENTRAL GULF LINES, INC., and S. S. GREEN FOREST, in Rem, Defendants-Appellees
5th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
Salem v. U. S. Lines Co., 370 U.S. 31, 35 , 82 S.Ct. 1119, 1122 , 8 L.Ed.2d 313, 317 (1962); Perkins v. Volkswagon of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir. 1979).
cited Cited as authority (rule) cadc 1981
D.C. Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
See Salem v. United States Lines Co., 370 U.S. 31, 35 , 82 S.Ct. 1119, 1122 , 8 L.Ed.2d 313 (1962); Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir. 1979); N. V.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Defenders of Wildlife, Inc. v. Endangered Species Scientific Authority
D.C. Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
See Salem v. United States Lines Co., 370 U.S. 31, 35 , 82 S.Ct. 1119, 1122 , 8 L.Ed.2d 313 (1962); Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir. 1979); N. V.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. B. H. Webb, A/K/A Hamp Webb
5th Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
Although we must reject these legal conclusions as “manifestly erroneous,” Salem v. United States Lines Co., 370 U.S. 31, 35 , 82 S.Ct. 1119, 1122 , 8 L.Ed.2d 313 (1962); Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir. 1979), we nevertheless hold that Webb’s experts were properly muzzled.
cited Cited "see" Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone
Tex. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682-83 (5th Cir.1979).
discussed Cited "see" Smith v. Ford Motor Co.
N.D. Ind. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Perkins v. Volkswagen of America,, Inc., 596 F.2d 681 (5th Cir.1979) (holding that a mechanical engineer with no experience in designing automobiles was permitted to express opinions on general mechanical engineering principles, but was prohibited from testifying as an expert in the area of automotive design); Hoban v. Grumman Corp., 717 F.Supp. 1129 (E.D.Va.1989) (finding that a licensed professional engineer with degrees *773 in electrical and mechanical engineering lacked the requisite “knowledge, skill, experience, training or education” to render opinions concerning aerodynamics o…
discussed Cited "see" Cecil v. T.M.E. Investments, Inc. (2×)
Tex. App. · 1994 · signal: accord · confidence high
Id. (cmts.); see also GAB Business Servs., Inc. v. Moore, 829 S.W.2d 345, 351 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1992, no writ) (discussing “cross-examination” of a friendly witness); accord Perkins v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir.1979) (considering similar situation under comparable federal rule and finding error in ruling that defense witness would become witness for plaintiff if first called to stand by plaintiff).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Terrence L. Brown
6th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Perkins v. Volkswagon America Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir.1979). 12 Officer Kanz's testimony was relevant to establish the issue of intent to distribute.
discussed Cited "see" Will v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.
S.D. Ga. · 1986 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir.1979) (Where witness was a specialist in mechanical engineering with no experience in designing entire automobiles, trial court’s decision not to allow him to testify as an expert in automotive design was not error). 5.
discussed Cited "see" Mcneese v. Reading And Bates Drilling Company
5th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681 (5th Cir.1979). 20 The appellant's third evidentiary challenge is that the trial court should have admitted the accident report filed with the Coast Guard.
cited Cited "see" McNeese v. Reading & Bates Drilling Co.
5th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681 (5th Cir.1979).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Edwin P. Wilson
5th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681 (5th Cir.1979). 2.
discussed Cited "see" Chris Garrett v. Desa Industries, Inc. (2×)
4th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681 (5th Cir.1979) (design of automobile); Poland v. Beaird-Poulan, 483 F.Supp. 1256 (W.D.La.1980) (design of chainsaws).
cited Cited "see" Ellis v. City of Chicago
7th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681 (5th Cir. 1979).
cited Cited "see" Ellis v. City of Chicago
7th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681 (5th Cir. 1979).
discussed Cited "see" Katherine Dunn v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Brasscraft Manufacturing Company, Inc. And Home Insurance Company
5th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir. 1979); Miley v. Delta Marine Drilling Co., 473 F.2d 856, 858 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 414 U.S. 871 , 94 S. Ct. 93 , 38 L.Ed.2d 89 (1973).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Edward Harold Corey
5th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681 (5th Cir. 1979).
cited Cited "see" Paul Randolph Liner, Cross v. J. B. Talley and Company, Inc., Cross North River Insurance Company and International Surplus Lines Insurance Company
5th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682-83 (5th Cir. 1979).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Dorothy R. Garber (2×)
5th Cir. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 5 Cir., 1979, 596 F.2d 681 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re \Agent Orange\" Product Liability Litigation"
E.D.N.Y · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir.1979) (affirming entry of directed verdict, where plaintiffs expert not qualified to testify as to automobile design defects and plaintiff failed to establish causation); compare Breidor v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 722 F.2d 1134, 1138 (3d Cir.1983) (exclusion of expert testimony abuse of discretion where it was useful in explaining how fire started because expert identified cause of fire in terms of probabilities by eliminating all but one reasonable potential cause).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Harris v. Buxton TV, Inc.
Miss. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence medium
The holding of these cases can be summarized as follows: Before the adoption of Rule 611(c), the use of leading questions on direct examination required either a showing of actual hostility or a determination that the witness being examined was an adverse party, or an officer, director, or managing *832 agent of such an adverse party. [citations omitted] These limitations were designed to guard against the risk of improper suggestion inherent in examining friendly witnesses through the use of leading questions. [citations omitted] The drafters of Rule 611(c), however, determined that these lim…
Victor and Marie PERKINS, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC., Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
78-2746.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jun 8, 1979.
596 F.2d 681
Roger J. LaRue, Jr., Metairie, La., for plaintiffs-appellants., Robert E. Winn, J. David Forsyth, New Orleans, La., for defendants-appellees.
Ainsworth, Godbold, Vance.
Cited by 67 opinions  |  Published
VANCE, Circuit Judge:

On January 24, 1975, in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, a Ford Mustang driven by Henri Desrochers collided with a turning 1969 Volkswagen van driven by Victor Perkins. The left front bumper of the Mustang penetrated the front panel of the Volkswagen van, severed Perkins’ left leg approximately two inches below his knee, and fractured Perkins’ left femur. Victor Perkins brought this products liability action against Volkswagen of America, Inc. and Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft (Volkswagen) claiming that the van was not crashworthy. The suit was tried before a jury, but, at the end of plaintiff’s presentation, the trial court granted Volkswagen’s motion for a directed verdict. Victor Perkins appeals arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to accept Dr. Mehdy Sab-baghian as an expert in the field of automotive design, in preventing Perkins from showing the relative severity of injuries suffered by the other passengers in the Volkswagen van, in refusing to allow Perkins to examine a Volkswagen employee as a hostile witness by leading questions, and in directing a verdict in favor of Volkswagen. We affirm.

The admission or exclusion of expert testimony is a matter left to the discretion of the trial judge, and his or her decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is manifestly erroneous. Salem v. United States Lines Co., 370 U.S. 31, 82 S.Ct. 1119, 8 L.Ed.2d 313 (1962); Keystone Plastics, Inc. v. C & P Plastics, Inc., 506 F.2d 960 (5th Cir. 1975); Stancill v. McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc., 497 F.2d 529 (5th Cir. 1974). See Fed.R.Evid. 702. The court permitted Dr. Sabbaghian, a specialist in mechanical engineering with no experience in designing entire automobiles, to express expert opinions on general mechanical engineering principles, but did not allow him to testify as an expert in automotive design. Because his decision was clearly not manifestly erroneous, we will not overturn it.

Similarly, the trial court has wide discretion in determining whether evidence is relevant and admissible. See Wright v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 580 F.2d 809 (5th Cir. 1978); Wallace v. Ener, 521 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1975); Fed.R.Evid. 401, 402. By showing that the van’s other passengers sustained only slight injuries, Perkins intended to promote the inference that, had the front panel of the van not been defective, Perkins would have been relatively uninjured. In deciding that the evidence was irrelevant and in excluding it, however, the court did not abuse its discretion.

After Dr. Sabbaghian testified, Perkins’ counsel stated that he. wished to call Mr. Frank Achcenich for cross-examination. Mr. Achcenich, who had not testified previously, is a Volkswagen employee. He was not listed in the pre-trial order by plaintiff, but was listed as an expert witness for defendants. Perkins’ counsel stated that he wished to call Achcenich not as an expert witness but as a fact witness. The court instructed counsel that if called, Achcenich would be Perkins’ own witness. Under those circumstances Perkins’ counsel elected not to call Achcenich. He now urges that the ruling of the trial court conflicts with the provisions of Fed.R.Evid. 611(c) which allows interrogation by leading questions of “a witness identified with an adverse party.”

We agree that the ruling of the trial court was incorrect. See 3 Weinstein’s Evidence 1611[05], at 611 — 58 (1978). Perkins, however, made no offer of proof and nothing in the record indicates what the witness would have testified if called or whether it would have been favorable to Perkins. The record therefore fails to demonstrate that Perkins was so prejudiced by the district court’s ruling as to justify reversal. See Securities Investment Co. v. Indian Waters [*683] Development Co., 501 F.2d 662 (5th Cir. 1974); Boulter v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Co., 442 F.2d 335 (6th Cir. 1971).

Under Louisiana products liability law, Perkins had the burden of showing that the van was unreasonably dangerous, or defective, for normal use and that the defect caused his injuries. See Perez v. Ford Motor Co., 497 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1974). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Perkins, we find that he did not meet this burden. See Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1969). Volkswagen’s motion for a directed verdict thus was properly granted.

AFFIRMED.