|
|
|
 |
Oelke v. Ford Motor CompanyNovember 2006, Circuit Court of Marathon County, Wisconsin Synopsis: The plaintiff was traveling southbound on Route 51 in central Wisconsin in his 1997 Ford F-150, at which time he was allegedly exposed to an unreasonably dangerous level of carbon monoxide. The plaintiff alleged that the excess carbon monoxide was the result of two defects in the design of the vehicle, the inappropriate programming of the powertrain control module and the inappropriate routing of the exhaust system. The plaintiff claimed that the carbon monoxide exposure resulted in severe physical and cognitive deficits. The defense argued that the vehicle’s design was appropriate and that the medical evidence did not support the plaintiff’s claim that his injuries were the result of carbon monoxide exposure. The jury returned a defense verdict in favor of Ford Motor Company in less than two hours. Christopoulos v. Ford Motor CompanyOctober 2006, U.S.D.C. Northern District of Illinois (Coar) Synopsis:The plaintiff was traveling northbound on I-94 when a wheel separated from a 1987 Ford F-150, bounced over the concrete median and crashed through the plaintiff’s windshield. The plaintiff suffered two broken vertebrae, which were surgically fused, as well as permanent double vision and weakness on the right side of his body. The plaintiff alleged that the spare wheel and tire were original equipment and that the taper on the lug nuts did not match the taper on the wheel thus allowing the lug nuts to back off over time. Ford contended that the operator of the vehicle, who had changed the wheel and tire 33 miles before it came off, failed to tighten the lug nuts sufficiently to create optimum clamp load. Ford further argued that the plaintiff could not establish with any reasonable certainty that the wheel and tire used in the roadside change was the same wheel equipped with the vehicle back in 1987. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s case-in-chief, a directed verdict was entered in favor of Ford. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to establish sufficient evidence that the wheel and tire used during the roadside change were the same replacement wheel and tire equipped with the vehicle in 1987. Francois K v. Ford Motor CompanyMay 2006, Circuit Court of Grundy County, IL (Peterson) Synopsis: An 18 year-old driver of a 1994 Ford Explorer was killed, and her 19 year-old female passenger was seriously injured when they were involved in a single-vehicle rollover accident on Interstate 55 in Grundy County, Illinois. Plaintiffs claimed that the Explorer was defective and unreasonably dangerous because its suspension design raised the vehicle’s center of gravity in foreseeable accident avoidance maneuvers at highway speeds. The defense denied that allegation and claimed that the driver’s excessive steering maneuvers overwhelmed the vehicle’s inherent stability, causing it to slide out of control on the interstate pavement before rolling over in a grass and dirt ditch in the median. Plaintiffs asked the jury to award between $6 and $11 million. After a two-week trial, a Grundy County jury found in favor of Ford Motor Company and answered special interrogatories that the vehicle was not defective, and that the driver’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident. Favia v. Ford Motor CompanyOctober 2005, Circuit Court of Cook County, IL Synopsis: Plaintiffs claimed one severe injury and multiple deaths after their rented Ford Aerostar Extended 4x2 minivan experienced an early morning rollover on Interstate 74, outside of Indianapolis. The vehicle was traveling in the passing lane, due to construction in the driving lane. The driving lane was 5-7 inches lower than the passing lane. The right-side tires of the vehicle dripped off the passing lane and down into the driving lane, and the vehicle struck several construction barrels. The driver steered sharply to the left to bring the right-side tires back up onto the passing lane. This resulted in a sideways skid of the vehicle across the passing lane and into the dirt median. The driver then over-corrected the steering to the right. As the vehicle skidded back onto the road surface, it began to rollover. Four unbelted plaintiffs were ejected from the vehicle. Three out pf the four died from their injuries. The remaining plaintiff was rendered blind and brain-damaged. Plaintiffs claimed that the vehicle was unstable and had a propensity to rollover in foreseeable driving situations. The Defense argued that the vehicle had reasonable resistance to rollover. Ford also claimed that many multi-passenger vehicles would have rolled over in the same situation and that the severe driving inputs were the sole proximate cause of the accident. Plaintiffs sought $29,900,000 in compensatory damages. The jury returned four defense verdicts against the four plaintiffs and in favor of Ford Motor Company within two hours, and found that the driver was the sole proximate cause of the accident. Las v. Wausau Underwriters Insurance Company, Village of Twin Lakes, Tim A. Shuda v. Ford Motor CompanyOctober 2005, Circuit Court of Kenosha County, Wisconsin Synopsis: The plaintiff was injured when a squad car driven by a police officer struck her vehicle. The police officer claimed that the brakes in the squad car, a 2000 Ford Crown Victoria, failed just prior to the accident. The police officer and the municipality brought a third-party action against Ford Motor Company. They alleged that the master cylinder, a part of the braking system in the squad car, malfunctioned. Three days after the accident, the squad car was taken to a dealership, where a mechanic replaced the master cylinder and discarded it. At trial, Ford argued that, despite the fact that the master cylinder was discarded before Ford could inspect it, all of the other evidence demonstrated that the part did not malfunction. For example, the police officer admitted that the brakes worked both before and after the accident; the minimal damage to both vehicles suggested that the brakes worked right before the accident occurred; and the police officer apologized to the plaintiff right after the accident. The jury deliberated for one hour before rendering a verdict in favor of Ford and against both the police officer and the municipality. The plaintiff had undergone surgeries for a torn rotator cuff and carpal tunnel syndrome and had $51,000 in medical bills. The jury's verdict against the police officer and the municipality totaled $262,000. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, as Subrogee of John W. Williams v. Ford Motor CompanySeptember 2005, Circuit Court of Cook County, IL Synopsis: Plaintiff, State Farm, brought this subrogation action against Ford Motor Company after a 1995 Lincoln Town Car owned by State Farm's insured caught fire in December 1996. The vehicle sustained heavy damage and was deemed a total loss. State Farm alleged that the fire originated in the center of the dashboard and occurred as a result of a poorly-fastened wiring harness. State Farm's theory was that the wiring harness was allowed to chafe against a metal bracket in the center of the dashboard, and that, as a result, electrical arcing occurred between exposed harness wires and the metal bracket. The defense argued that the vehicle was too badly damaged for anyone to identify a cause of the fire; that there was no evidence to support plaintiff's chafing theory; and that no history of problems with the routing of wiring harnesses in 1995 Lincoln Town Cars exists. Ford also argued that a loose wiring harness would have caused a loud rattling in the dash panel but that there were no reported complaints of such rattling. The jury deliberated approximately 3.5 hours before returning a verdict in Ford's favor. Arsho Martin, et. al. v. Ford Motor Company, et. al.Nov.-Dec. 2004, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens Synopsis: Plaintiffs claimed multiple severe injuries and a death after their 1990 Lincoln Mark VII "suddenly accelerated" due to the presence of "electromagnetic interference" which corrupted the vehicle’s cruise control system. The vehicle allegedly took off over a lawn, off the curb onto the street and proceeded for approximately six hundred feet before it jumped another curb, went through an iron fence and came to rest after striking a tree. The defense argued that there was absolutely no scientific support for the plaintiff’s theory of defect and that the physical evidence (which included marks on the back of the accelerator pedal, knee imprints in the bolster above the accelerator and the injuries sustained to the driver) were consistent with the driver being on the accelerator pedal at the time of impact. Plaintiffs asked for compensatory and punitive damages, the latter of which was dismissed at the close of plaintiff’s case. The jury then returned a defense verdict as to compensatory damages. Denise Kaye Chapman, et. al. v. Ford Motor Company and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Dec. 2004, Circuit Court of Baxter County, Arkansas Synopsis: Plaintiffs claimed that a 1988 Lincoln Town Car "suddenly accelerated" from a parking lot, traveled approximately 200 feet and slammed into a children’s carousel where the plaintiffs were located. A two-month old infant was killed and his two year old brother suffered the traumatic amputation of one of his legs. The plaintiffs’ primary expert witness testified that the event was caused by errant "electronic transient signals." The defense argued that there was no scientific support for the plaintiffs’ theory of defect and that a reconstruction of the accident scene was consistent with the driver applying the accelerator pedal over the entire distance traveled by the Town Car. The plaintiffs’ requested that the jury return a verdict of $3.5 million. Had a finding of punitive conduct been made, the jury would have been required to determine the amount of punitive awards in a bifurcated segment of the trial. In a little over an hour of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Ford Motor Company and against all plaintiffs. State Farm as subrogee of Sharon Frausto v. Ford Motor CompanyOctober, 2004; Circuit Court, Will County, Illinois Synopsis: Shortly after a new alternator was installed, a fire started in a vehicle and eventually engulfed another car, the garage and nearly destroyed a family’s home and all of their belongings. Plaintiffs alleged that the design of the Ford IAR 2G alternator was defective and was unwittingly used by a rebuilder that sold the part. Plaintiffs argued that the part was flawed and prone to fires and used three experts from a rebuilder’s trade group to criticize the design of the alternator. Ford defended its design and received a defense verdict. Plaintiffs requested over $160,000 from the jury. Converse v. Kia Motors America, Inc.July, 2004; Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois Synopsis: Plaintiffs brought suit pursuant to the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act alleging that their 2002 Kia Spectra was defective at the time of purchase, in violation of both the express warranty and the implied warranty of merchantability. Specifically, plaintiffs presented evidence of multiple transmission repairs, brake repairs and other non-conformities. Kia Motors contended that the vehicle was not defective at the time of manufacture and that it had not breached its express or implied warranties. Instead, Kia Motors argued that plaintiffs’ experience with the vehicle were a result of commercial use and that all problems were repaired pursuant to the warranty within a reasonable number of attempts. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Kia Motors America, Inc. State Farm Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Johnetta Johnson v. Ford Motor CompanyJune, 2004; Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois Synopsis: After Johnetta Johnson started her 2001 Ford Escape, an engine compartment fire caused the vehicle to be assessed a total loss. Plaintiff claimed that, due to a defective power steering system, power steering fluid was expelled onto hot engine surfaces, causing the fire. Ford’s experts examined the vehicle and found nothing wrong with the power steering system. Ford contended that the only explanation for the accident was that an improper installation of an aftermarket vehicle alarm caused the fire. The jury returned a verdict for the Defendant. DeGenaro v. Ford Motor CompanyOctober - November, 2003; Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Synopsis: On June 10, 1999, 26-year-old Jennifer DeGenaro was driving a 1996 Mystique when she rear-ended the vehicle in front of her. The impact deployed the driver’s air bag causing a severe fracture in her right upper arm, which required six separate surgeries and left her permanently deformed, scarred and disabled. Plaintiff and her experts claimed that the Mystique’s air bag inflator was too aggressive, particularly for short statured women. Plaintiff claimed that an alternative, safer and practicable design existed that would have prevented her severe upper arm fracture. Ford contended that the vehicle’s driver air bag system demonstrated excellent performance in reducing the potential for serious head, neck and chest injuries for occupants of all sizes in frontal accidents. Ford further established that plaintiff’s specific arm location at the time of deployment demonstrated that no alternative design would have eliminated the risk of severe upper extremity injury without compromising the air bag’s ability to meet the requirements of the existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and provide sufficient occupant protection in frontal crashes. Plaintiff sought $850,000. The jury returned a verdict for the defense. Bell-Reichert v. Ford Motor CompanyNovember, 2002; Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois Synopsis: Plaintiff alleged that after putting her 1999 Ford Escort in park, turning the ignition to the lock position and removing the keys, the vehicle began to roll as she was exiting it and knocked her down, resulting in injuries to her shoulder and arm. The Escort continued down the hill and into a ditch and both air bags deployed. The responding police officer reported that the vehicle was in park and the keys were out of the ignition when he arrived. Ford’s experts examined the vehicle and found nothing wrong with the transmission or park mechanism. Ford contended that the accident could not have happened as plaintiff described and that the only explanation for the accident was that the plaintiff left the vehicle in drive and the keys in the ignition as she exited the vehicle. Ford contended that the plaintiff must have gone back to the vehicle, put it in park and removed the keys before the police arrived. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. Goodenough v. Stewart & Stevenson Services, Inc.October - November, 2002; Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois Synopsis: Plaintiff, an employee of American Airlines, was injured when an aircraft tractor crushed him against another tractor during the pushback of a Boeing 767. Plaintiff suffered severe and massive injuries resulting in 22 surgical procedures, permanent incontinence and impotence, and chronic pain that was unremediable by medication. He alleged that he was unemployable and had paid $485,000 in medical bills and would incur $3.6 million in future medical payments and lost earnings. He alleged that the tractor was defective in that it provided limited operator visibility, had neither a back up alarm nor a light beacon and that the mirrors were defective. The pre-trial settlement demand was $18 million dollars and the defendant had offered $4.2 million. The case was settled for $5 million at the start of the defense case after five weeks of trial. Bludgeon v. Ford Motor Company and Hawkinson Ford CompanyOctober, 2002 Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois Synopsis: Plaintiff alleged that a 1996 Ford Taurus accelerated out of control while approaching her from the rear, colliding with her vehicle and sending it across an intersection. She sustained three herniated disks in the accident, two in her neck and one in her lower back. The driver of the 1996 Taurus alleged that the vehicle had accelerated on its own, reaching 250 RPM immediately prior to the collision. The Taurus had been purchased by two separate owners and had its transmission repaired five times prior to the accident. The transmission was replaced after the collision. Ford contended that the vehicle was not defective and did not accelerate on its own, asserting that the driver had applied the accelerator instead of the brake and that he alone caused the collision. Plaintiff sought $350,000. The jury returned a verdict for Ford and the dealership State Farm Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Michael and Denise Stapay v. Ford Motor CompanyJuly, 2002; Circuit Court of Will County, Illinois Synopsis: Elizabeth Stapay was driving her family’s 1997 Ford Thunderbird when an engine compartment fire caused the vehicle to be assessed at a total loss. Plaintiff alleged that the power distribution box in the vehicle was defective and caused the fire. Ford contested that the power distribution box was defective and contended that the fire was a result of damage to the cooling fan, which occurred in a previous accident. A defense verdict was rendered in favor of Ford. Moland v. Ford Motor CompanyAugust, 2001; Circuit Court, DeKalb County, Illinois Synopsis: Plaintiff alleged a fuel system defect in 1997 Lincoln Continental resulted in a vehicle fire and extensive property damage. Ford contested that fuel was the cause of the fire. Kedzuch v. Ford Motor CompanyMay, 2001; Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois Synopsis: Cherryl and Timothy Kedzuch struck a small deer in their 1994 Taurus, causing the air bag to deploy. The air bag’s deployment resulted in a severe femur fracture to Cherryl Kedzuch, who contended she sat cross-legged in the front passenger seat. Plaintiffs argued that the sensor calibrations on the Taurus were set too low. They also alleged that other manufacturers conducted simulated deer testing in calibrating their sensor systems to eliminate deer impact deployments. Defendant maintained that calibrations on the crash sensors were set to ensure optimum performance. Ford also contended that the plaintiff was not sitting cross-legged, but was seated with her leg on the dashboard at the time of the air bag’s deployment. Plaintiffs sought $5.1 million. The jury returned a verdict for the defense. Boyd v. Hyundai Motor AmericaMay, 2001; Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois Synopsis: Plaintiff in this Magnuson-Moss Warranty action claimed that alleged defects in multiple systems rendered her 1999 Hyundai Sonata unfit for use. Skowronski v. Ford Motor CompanyFebruary - April, 2001; Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois Synopsis: The 37-year-old plaintiff claimed a brake failure on his 1995 Ford Explorer caused it to strike a utility pole. He allegedly sustained a traumatic brain injury with coma, cognitive and emotional deficits, and memory and vision loss, resulting in his inability to practice dentistry. Defendant claimed driver error and that the master brake cylinder had been drained by post-accident tampering, and disputed the severity of plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff sought $6.7 million. The jury returned a defense verdict. Country Mutual, as Subrogee of Donald Essling v. Ford Motor CompanyFebruary, 2001; Circuit Court, DeKalb County, Illinois Synopsis: Plaintiff claimed electrical system defects caused a fire that destroyed an F-450 truck. Ford contended that post-sale modification of the electrical system to accommodate a snow plow blade was the cause of the fire. Plaintiff sought $26,000. The jury returned a defense verdict. Purvis v. Ford Motor CompanySeptember - October, 2000; Circuit Court, Hamilton, Indiana Synopsis: Plaintiffs alleged that the front seats in their 1991 Ford Aerostar van were designed with insufficient strength because they collapsed during an impact with a tractor trailer resulting in a severe incapacitating brain injury to Mr. Purvis. Plaintiffs’ claim of inadequate seat strength was rebutted by evidence that yielding seats minimize occupant injury potential, that the front seats were the state-of-the-art design, and that the rear impact was angular such that Mr. Purvis suffered his injuries before the seat back rotated. Plaintiff sought $40 million compensatory and unspecified punitive damages. The jury returned a defense verdict. Lebensorger v. Ford Motor CompanyApril - May, 2000; Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois Synopsis: Plaintiff, a pregnant 35-year-old mother of two, was rendered a brain damaged spastic quadriplegic when her 1988 Ford Bronco II rolled over on a Chicago interstate. Plaintiff alleged that the design of the vehicle was unstable and that Ford knew of the defect. The trial court had barred five defense experts and all post-production and litigation-related vehicle tests offered by the defense given Ford’s refusal to produce several hundred pages of documents that had been held privileged by numerous other courts of review. Plaintiff sought $56 million in compensatory damages and $1.36 billion in punitive damages. Plaintiff was awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and no punitive damages. Estate of Russell v. Ford Motor CompanyMarch, 2000 and May - June, 2000; Federal District Court, Wyoming Synopsis: A 1989 Mercury Cougar collided head-on with a Toyota Corolla. The driver of the Toyota was killed, her 10-day-old grandson suffered profound brain damage, a 7-year-old son was ejected and suffered the traumatic amputation of a leg, and a 5-year-old daughter suffered multiple orthopedic injuries as did a 19-year-old daughter. A fifth child suffered minor injuries but experienced severe psychiatric problems. The plaintiffs argued that a malfunction of the Cougar’s cruise control caused a wide open throttle. Ford defended the case on the basis that the driver of the Cougar made a pedal error. The trial was bifurcated. The trial judge directed a verdict for Ford on the punitive damage claim, and the jury returned a total award of $3.2 million in response to the plaintiffs’ request for $38 million. Carrillo v. Ford Motor Company and GaszkowskiOctober - November, 1999; Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois Synopsis: Lydia Carrillo was stopped at a red light in her 1991 Explorer when her vehicle was rear-ended by Gaszkowski at a closing speed of 55 m.p.h. Her driver’s seat back "collapsed" causing her to ramp and strike her head against the rear seat back. Ms. Carrillo, a 31-year-old mother of two, was rendered a paraplegic. Plaintiffs contended that the seat back was defective and should have been stiffer to prevent total collapse and the resultant ramping of the plaintiff. Ford defended the case on the basis that Gaszkowski’s negligence was the sole proximate cause and the "yielding" character of the seat was beneficial in protecting occupants from neck and spinal injuries in most rear-end impacts. The jury awarded $14 million to Lydia Carrillo and $500,000 to Angelo Carrillo. The jury apportioned 70% fault to Gaszkowski. Plaintiffs sought $41 million. Willis v. Allied ProductsOctober, 1999; Cook County, Illinois Synopsis: This case arose from the much-publicized 1996 accident on Interstate 94 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin that took the lives of six children of the Reverend Duane Scott Willis and his wife Janet. The family was in their Chrysler minivan when it struck a 50-pound tail light housing that dropped from the semi-truck driven by Ricardo Guzman. The van burst into flames, and the Willis parents were burned as they unsuccessfully attempted to save their children, who burned to death. Following a $100 million settlement of the underlying personal injury case, which included $14 million on behalf of Allied Products, a contribution claim was tried by Allied and Chrysler against a non-settling defendant. The resulting favorable verdict represented a 100% recovery by Allied. Estate of Emerson v. Ford Motor CompanyJuly, 1999; Circuit Court, Detroit, Michigan Synopsis: Wrongful death claim by surviving spouse on behalf of 70-year-old decedent who was driving a Ford Crown Victoria that was alleged to have suddenly accelerated from a parking lot into traffic, resulting in a fatal collision. The surviving spouse also claimed a closed head injury. Plaintiffs sought recovery on the theory that a failure of a component in the high idle control system caused the vehicle’s engine speed to suddenly increase. Ford defended the case on the basis that the vehicle could readily have been stopped prior to the time it entered traffic even if the engine speed was at the rpm level suggested by plaintiffs’ experts. Plaintiff sought $10 million. The jury returned a defense verdict. Estate of Morgen v. Ford Motor CompanyJune, 1999; Superior Court, South Bend, Indiana Synopsis: Plaintiff, age 18, was a passenger in a 1984 Ford Escort station wagon that was struck from behind by another vehicle. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff was rendered a complete quadriplegic. Plaintiff alleged inadequate crashworthiness, causing movement of the passenger seat into the roof. The defense contended that the forces of the accident caused plaintiff’s head to strike the roof of the vehicle and fracture his spine, and this occurred regardless of the vertical movement of the seat during the accident. Plaintiff sought $42 million. The jury returned a defense verdict. Wilder v. Ford Motor CompanyOctober - November, 1998; Circuit Court of Perry County, Illinois Synopsis: Plaintiff suffered profound brain injuries, multiple orthopedic problems and neurological deficits after she was ejected from the rear seat of a 1991 Ford Escort during a rollover accident. Plaintiff claimed that she was wearing the available lap/shoulder belt, but was thrown from the vehicle after the belt released during the course of the rollover. Plaintiff’s expert criticized the release button design and theorized that the plaintiff inadvertently struck the raised button, causing the release. Ford presented fact and expert testimony that the plaintiff was not wearing the seat belt at the time of the accident. Plaintiff sought $6 million. The jury returned a verdict of $5 million, which was reduced on post-trial motion to $3.75 million. Cross v. Ford Motor CompanySeptember, 1998; Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois Synopsis: Plaintiff suffered a fractured sternum, fractured ribs and several herniated disks which required fusions after she broadsided another vehicle while driving a 1990 Probe. She claimed the Probe’s restraint system was defective. Her experts asserted that the vehicle should have been equipped with an air bag and driver’s seat belt retractors which would have prevented slack in the belt webbing during the impact. The jury found that the restraint system was not defective, and that an air bag may have increased plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff sought $1.8 million. The jury returned a defense verdict. DuPre and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Comapny v. Ford Motor Company and Fleetwood EnterprisesJune - July, 1998; Circuit Court, Barron County, Wisconsin Synopsis: Plaintiff’s 1984 Tioga motor home was involved in a non-collision fire resulting in the complete destruction of the motor home and all of its contents. Plaintiffs sued Ford Motor Company, the manufacturer of the chassis, and Fleetwood, the second stage manufacturer of the motor home. Plaintiffs’ expert claimed that the fire was a result of a vapor leak in the fuel delivery line and that Ford failed to properly attach clamps at a connection between the metal fuel line and a rubber hose. The defense experts were not able to determine the cause or origin of the fire, but testified that plaintiffs’ expert’s theory was not valid. The jury deliberated for thirty minutes before returning a verdict in favor of both Ford and Fleetwood. Pella Mutual Insurance Company, et al. v. Ford Motor CompanyApril, 1998; Circuit Court, Waupaca County, Wisconsin Synopsis: Plaintiffs sued Ford Motor Company for the destruction of their home and their Ford Escort. Plaintiffs claimed that their 1989 Ford Escort contained an allegedly defective ignition switch which led to a vehicle fire and spread to the plaintiffs’ home. The ignition switch was subject to a safety recall, which coincidentally was issued the day after the fire. Ford’s experts were not able to determine the cause or origin of the fire. The jury returned a plaintiff verdict. Johnston v. Ford Motor CompanyMarch, 1998; USDC, Central District of Illinois Synopsis: Plaintiff’s decedent was strangled by the automatic shoulder belt following a rollover accident. Plaintiffs claimed that the automatic shoulder belt system in Ford’s 1993 Tempo was defective due to inadequate warnings and instructions regarding the use of the vehicle’s manual lap belt. Plaintiffs also claimed that the automatic shoulder belt system is not effective in preventing life threatening and serious injuries without the use of a manual lap belt. The decedent’s three surviving daughters claimed damages for the pecuniary loss of their mother and for the conscious pain and suffering she endured prior to her death. Plaintiff sought $829,000. The jury returned a defense verdict. Diaz v. Ford Motor CompanyOctober, 1997; District Court of Harris County, Texas (Houston) Synopsis: Upon returning from dinner with her husband, sister and brother-in-law, the decedent, Virginia Diaz, parked her Lincoln Town Car in the carport of the Diaz’s house. After they exited the car, it was determined that one of the rear doors was stuck on a piece of the carport. Ms. Diaz re-entered the vehicle in order to pull it forward. As she shifted into drive, the vehicle suddenly accelerated through the rear of the carport and ultimately traveled an additional twenty-five feet at which point it catapulted into a canal. The car remained afloat for approximately ten minutes and then submerged with the resulting death of Mrs. Diaz. Her husband, sister and brother-in-law witnessed Ms. Diaz’s futile attempts to escape from the vehicle while it remained afloat. Plaintiffs claimed the vehicle was defective for lack of a brake-shift interlock. Ford countered that the sudden acceleration was caused by pedal misapplication, prompted by decedent’s intoxication. Plaintiff sought in excess of $10 million. The jury returned a defense verdict. Doyle v. Ford Motor CompanyJuly, 1997; Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois Synopsis: Plaintiff, a 19-year-old female, was driving a 1990 Ford Escort equipped with an automatic shoulder belt. She was traveling at approximately 55 mph when she encountered a deer in the roadway, braked, swerved, lost control of the vehicle and collided with a ditch. Plaintiff’s head struck the steering wheel resulting in broken nasal bones, lacerations and alleged permanent injuries to her nasal cavity. Plaintiff alleged the restraint system was susceptible to "skip-lock" and sought in excess of $350,000. The jury returned a defense verdict. Blue v. Ford Motor CompanyMarch, 1997; Wisconsin State Court, Milwaukee Synopsis: Plaintiff claimed that Ford’s failure to implement an ignition key interlock allowed plaintiff to turn the ignition key to "off" without placing the vehicle in "park." This allegedly caused the vehicle to roll backwards and strike Ms. Blue, rendering her a quadriplegic. After four weeks of trial, plaintiff sought $6.5 million in damages from Ford. The jury returned a verdict for Ford and allocated 100% of fault between plaintiff, Ms. Blue, and her husband, plaintiff/co-defendant, Reverend Blue, with damages of $5.7 million against Rev. Blue. Brown v. Ford Motor CompanyDecember, 1996; Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois Synopsis: Four family members died due to fire-related injuries and the surviving mother received multiple orthopedic injuries and burns over 30% of her body when the Ford Econoline vehicle in which they were traveling collided with an abutment and caught fire. Plaintiff contended the vehicle was defective due to use of plastic fuel lines, which were severed in the collision, and for lack of check valves which would have prevented siphoning of gasoline. Plaintiff sought in excess of $175 million in compensatory damages. The jury returned a defense verdict. The Court entered a directed verdict in favor of the defense on punitive damages claims. Butler v. Ford Motor Company1996; State District Court, Dallas, Texas Synopsis: Plaintiff received severe upper extremity crush injuries, including damage to her cervical spine, when struck by a Ford Crown Victoria. Plaintiff alleged the vehicle "suddenly accelerated" due to electronic defects and should have been equipped with a brake shift interlock. The judge entered a directed verdict for Ford. Olivet Nazarene v. Ford Motor Company1995; Federal District Court, C.D. Illinois Synopsis: A 20-year-old college student received severe closed head injuries, three students were killed and three other students were less severely injured when a Ford Econoline rolled over in a high speed accident. All passengers were ejected from the van. Plaintiffs alleged that the vehicle was unreasonably dangerous due to its alleged rollover propensities and inherent instability. Plaintiffs sought $6 million. The jury returned a defense verdict. Krawczyk v. Ford Motor Company1995; State District Court, Shawno, Wisconsin Synopsis: Mr. Krawczyk received severe closed head injuries, with "locked in" syndrome, and Ms. Krawczyk received severe orthopedic injuries from an accident involving a Ford Bronco. Plaintiffs alleged defects in the floor pan, seats and restraints. Plaintiffs sought over $7 million in compensatory damages and also sought punitive damages. The jury returned a defense verdict. Samlin v. Ford Motor Company1995; Federal District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Synopsis: Plaintiff received severe crushing injuries to his lower extremities in an accident allegedly caused by the "sudden acceleration" of a Lincoln Town car. Plaintiffs sought $2.3 million. The jury returned a defense verdict. Massey v. Ford Motor Company1995; District Court, Saline County, Arkansas Synopsis: Plaintiff, age 23, was rendered a quadriplegic from injuries sustained due to a throttle cable defect which caused a "sudden acceleration" in a Ford Bronco. Plaintiff’s wife was killed in a separate, head-on automobile accident, while returning home from visiting her husband while he was hospitalized. Plaintiff received a verdict of $7 million, but had asked the jury for $15 million in compensatory damages. |
