Juries in Three Automotive Defect Cases Find For the Plaintiffs
Reprinted from The Safety Record, Volume 6, Issue 2, March/April 2009
Juries in Georgia, Colorado and Texas recently delivered verdicts worth more than $46 million against Ford Motor Company and Nissan in three different defect cases. Ford lost in two separate cases involving an Explorer transmission defect and a seat-belt unlatch incident involving a Mercury Cougar. Nissan was found at fault in a crashworthiness case involving a 1995 Pathfinder. Below are summaries of the cases:
Mundy v. Ford Motor Company
A Dekalb County, Georgia jury found that Jessica Mundy’s 2004 Explorer suddenly shifted from park to reverse and ran over her, causing permanent paralysis. The jury awarded Mundy, a 23-year-old accountant, $9.3 million in compensatory damages and $30.7 million in punitive damages. The case centered on a defect in the transmission known as a “false park,” in which the driver shifts the into park and believes the vehicle is stable. After a delay, the truck shifts into reverse and drives backwards.
“There is a space between park and reverse that the gear can get hung up which can allow the vehicle to move back into reverse,” explained Jeff Harris, of the Atlanta firm of Harris, Penn, Lowry, one of Mundy’s lawyers.
Mundy was permanently injured after exiting her Explorer at a post office in Mcdonough, Georgia. She had placed the gear selector into the park position, then noticed the Explorer begin to move backwards. When she tried to reenter and stop the truck, it ran over her. “This has been a problem that Ford has been aware of for more than thirty years,” said lawyer Steve Lowry. “Ford’s own rules of design required them to take action on this problem and they have not done anything in almost thirty years.”
During the trial, the jury heard evidence of 751 complaints regarding Ford vehicles shifting themselves into reverse after being seemingly stable in park. The jury also heard from three other individuals who were injured when their Explorers moved in reverse after each thought the vehicle was in park.
In April, NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened a inquiry into park to reverse in 1.4 million 2002 – 2005 Ford Explorers. NHTSA based the Preliminary Evaluation on media questions about the issue during Mundy trial. The agency noted that it had 11 complaints alleging vehicle rollaways after the vehicle was shifted into park. Eight resulted in crashes; four resulted in injuries after the driver was struck by the vehicle. The agency received an additional 61 complainants alleging a failure of the gear shift lever mechanism while shifting from or to the park position.
Hoffman v. Ford Motor Company
In late April, a jury in a Denver U.S. District Court awarded $18 million to a Keenesburg, Colorado woman who was left a quadriplegic after the seat belt of the 1996 Ford Mercury Cougar Coupe unlatched in a rollover crash. Erica Hoffman, 20, had previously settled with the driver of the vehicle and TRW, which manufactured the seatbelt.
The crash occurred on March 14, 2006, as Hoffman and the driver, Shannon Ovancara drove to Weld Central High School. The Cougar Coupe rolled four-and-a-half times, Hoffman was ejected from the vehicle when her seatbelt unlatched.
The jury deliberated for three and a half days before retuning a verdict. Ford was found to be 25 percent at fault and was responsible for $4.23 million of the judgment. Hoffman was represented by Randolph Barnhardt, of Barnhardt, Ekker & McNally LLP of Englewood Colorado.
Ford continues to claim that Hoffman wasn’t wearing her seatbelt and says that it plans to appeal.
Perdue v. Nissan Motor Company
Earlier this month, an East Texas jury awarded $2,197,000 to Rebecca Perdue, a 63-year-old woman who suffered permanent injuries. The jury found Nissan totally responsible for Mrs. Perdue’s injuries.
Perdue suffered extensive injuries to her legs and feet in a November 28, 2006 crash in Tyler, Texas. Perdue was driving a 1995 Nissan Pathfinder, when she was struck by a 2004 Hyundai Tiburon traveling 45-50mph. The Hyundai had swerved to avoid hitting a 2006 Toyota 4Runner that had failed to yield the right of way. The Hyundai struck the left front corner of Perdue’s vehicle in a left frontal offset impact crash, driving the left front tire back through the firewall. The force destroyed the footwell, the floor pan and the toe board survival space area. Perdue suffered fractures to her right tibia, right fibula, and both ankles.
Todd Tracy and co-counsel Melissa Smith of the Dallas-based Tracy Law Firm produced evidence that the design of 1987-1995 Pathfinder was defective for not being able to protect the lower legs in frontal offset impacts. Nissan failed to conduct any frontal offset crash testing or any type of engineering analysis to evaluate the risks associated with lower leg injuries in frontal offset impacts. Nissan’s own testing showed the automaker knew that its front wheel could drive into and through the firewall, toe board, foot well and floor pan area.
At trial, Tracy presented evidence of frontal offset testing dating back to 1969 from the experimental safety vehicle conferences. The research outlined how to design and protect the lower legs during frontal offset impacts. The design alternatives included strengthening the toeboard, footwell and floorpan area so that the survival space for the lower legs would not be destroyed. There were also designs to redirect and redistribute the crash load away from the lower leg survival space.
Tracy also argued that since 1971, vehicle manufacturers knew that frontal offset impacts were the most frequent type of frontal crash and that for nearly 40 years every vehicle manufacturer – except for Nissan, Toyota and Honda – have been conducting offset frontal research in search of ways to protect occupants’ legs in that type of crash. GM, Ford, Chrysler, Mercedes, Volvo, British Leland, Alfa Romeo, Fiat, AMF, the U.S., Canadian and Australian government all had conducted research in this area. But Nissan did not conduct a frontal offset test until 2004.