Cuesta v. Ford Motor Co.

• Decision Date: 21 April 2009
• Docket Number: No. 104,480.,No. 104,485.,104,480.,104,485.
• Citation: 209 P.3d 278,2009 OK 24
• Parties: Braulio M. CUESTA and Eric L. Golden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY and Williams Controls, Inc., Defendants/Appellants.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

209 P.3d 278

2009 OK 24

Braulio M. CUESTA and Eric L. Golden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY and Williams Controls, Inc., Defendants/Appellants.

No. 104,480.

No. 104,485.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

April 21, 2009.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION III

¶ 0 Plaintiffs sued Defendants for breach of warranty, negligence and strict products liability, alleging their Ford trucks contain a defective accelerator pedal. They sought to have the case certified as a class action pursuant to 12 O.S.2001 2023. The trial court certified the case as a class action, and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the order, finding error based on choice of law and damages. Certiorari was previously granted.

OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS IS VACATED; ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT IS AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS OPINION

Michael Burrage, Durant, OK, John E. Dowdell, William W. O'Connor, Tulsa, OK, Troy L. Greene, Houston, TX, and Mark A. Giugliano, Grant J. Harvey, Andrew L. Pickens, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs/Appellees.

Vani Singhal, Mary Quinn Cooper, Andrew L. Richardson, Shelly J. Dalrymple, Tulsa, OK, and W.G. "Gil" Steidley, Charles D Neal, Jr., McAlester, OK, for Defendant/Appellant Ford Motor Company.

John J. Carwile, Gregory D. Nellis, Marthanda J. Beckworth, Tulsa, OK, and Kurt Stitcher, Chicago, IL, for Defendant/Appellant Williams Controls, Inc.

OPINION

WATT, J.:

¶ 1 This Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari of Braulio M. Cuesta and Eric L. Golden, (Plaintiffs) in their action against Ford Motor Company (Ford) and Williams Controls, Inc., (Williams) or (collectively, Defendants) to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in certifying a class action under the facts presented. Upon review of the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals' (COCA) reversal of the trial court's order granting class action certification pursuant to 12 O.S.2001 2023,¹ we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The trial court's order of certification is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings. The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals is vacated.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND CONTENTIONS

¶ 2 Plaintiffs brought their claims against Defendants for design and/or manufacturing defects in the fixed, non-adjustable accelerator pedal, i.e., the "electronic throttle control", or "ETC", which is designed and manufactured by Williams and installed in certain trucks² manufactured by Ford.³ They contend the pedals, which were modified twice, failed Ford's "overload" tests and engineering specifications. It is alleged that when forcible pressure is applied to the pedals that they cause the vehicles to shift to idle instead of accelerating and, therefore, are defective and unreasonably dangerous. Plaintiffs' theories of recovery include breach of express and implied warranties, negligence and strict products liability. However, we determine only whether class certification is appropriate to determine a breach of warranty theory under the facts presented.⁴ On March 1, 2007, the trial court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. In its order, the court discussed some of the evidence, stating:

[P]laintiffs have presented substantial, uncontroverted evidence that Ford made two design changes to all of the pedals in an effort to remedy the "going to idle" defect. First, Ford attempted to remedy the BA pedal design (as well as the next generation pedal) by adding a forked lever arm to all existing pedals manufactured by WCI [Williams] with the goal of making the pedals more robust. But when that design modification proved insufficient, Ford then implemented a second universal design change aimed at eliminating the design gap behind all of the pedals at issue, which Ford engineers believed caused the "going to idle" defect. Plaintiffs presented evidence, in the form of Ford's documents and testimony from a Ford engineer, that all of the subject accelerator pedals share an identical 2-3 millimeter gap behind the pedal bracket in their CAD (computer-aided design) drawings and also share the identical pedal bracket.

With this background, Plaintiffs claim that the following common questions of law and fact exist in this case: (1) whether the accelerator pedals at issue are defective; (2) whether the pedals are unreasonably dangerous; (3) whether the pedals reduce the value of the vehicles; and (4) whether the sale of the vehicles containing these pedals to members of the class constitutes a breach of any express or implied warranty by Defendants Ford and WCI?

Based on the facts noted above and the evidence adduced to date, this Court finds, as in Hanlon⁵, that these questions of fact and law presented by Plaintiffs are common to the class as they stem from the allegedly defective accelerators manufactured by WCI that were installed in 2001.25, 2002, 2003 and 2003.25 Ford pickup trucks and Excursions with diesel engines. . . .

¶ 3 It has been alleged there are between 300,000 and 500,000 potential class members who have Ford trucks with the subject pedals, either the BA, the BB or the AC, satisfying the "numerosity" requirement for class certification. 12 O.S.2001 2023(A)(1). Additionally, the trial court agreed with the Plaintiffs' asserted common questions of fact and law and found the central issues common to all class members are whether the pedals are defective and unreasonably dangerous and whether they give rise to breaches of Ford's and Williams' express and implied warranties and legal duties. The trial court also held that if the claim arises from the same event or course of conduct, and gives rise to the same legal or remedial theory, factual differences will not preclude certification, citing Lobo Exploration Co. v. Amoco Production Co., 1999 OK CIV APP 112, 991 P.2d 1048, cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1124, 120 S.Ct. 1996, 146 L.Ed.2d 821 (2000).

¶ 4 Despite Defendants' allegation that factual variations⁶ between the Plaintiffs' and potential class members' claims preclude class certification, the trial court held the "typicality" requirement, 12 O.S.2001 2023 (A)(3), was satisfied. The court held:

a. the class representatives' and members' claims are based on the same legal theories: breach of express and implied warranties; negligence and strict products liability;⁷

b. the claims arise from the same course of alleged conduct, i.e., Ford installed Williams' defective accelerator pedals which do not meet Ford's overload engineering specifications and which consequently fail and go to idle when forcefully depressed; and

c. they seek identical remedies which include the replacement cost of the defective pedal and/or the diminution in value of the vehicle caused by the defective accelerator.

¶ 5 In the appeal brought by Defendants, COCA reversed the certification order, finding that individual issues predominated over the common issues and that the class was unmanageable. It held in ¶ 1:

The trial court erred in its choice of law decision. On de novo review of that question of law, we find that the law of the place of purchase applies to the claims asserted in this case. As a result the nationwide class certified in this case is unmanageable because individual issues predominate over the common issues. We therefore find that the trial court abused its discretion in certifying this case as a class action proceeding. We remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

¶ 6 In support of their certiorari request, Plaintiffs alleged the following:

I. COCA's choice of law analysis directly contradicts and conflicts with this Court's ruling in Ysbrand v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.⁸

II. COCA's ruling that individualized damages issues predominate over common issues contradicts the law of this Court and many federal courts, requiring this Court's review.

III. The Court of Appeals' typicality analysis conflicts with this Court's established precedent in Ysbrand v. Daimler-Chrysler, Burgess v. Farmers Ins. Co.,⁹ and Black Hawk Oil Co. v. Exxon Corp.¹⁰

IV. COCA's inquiry on the merits is contrary to United States Supreme Court precedent and this Court's decisions in Burgess v. Farmers Ins. Co. and Black Hawk Oil Co. v. Exxon Corp.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 7 A trial court's order certifying a class action is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Ysbrand v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 2003 OK 17, 81 P.3d 618, citing Scoufos v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2001 OK 113, 41 P.3d 366. If the record does not show that the requisites for class action have been met, the trial court has abused its discretion. Masquat v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation, 2008 OK 67, ¶ 8, 195 P.3d 48, 52, citing Harvell v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2006 OK 24, ¶ 9, 164 P.3d 1028, 1032. However, we must affirm if no such abuse of discretion is shown. Black Hawk Oil Company v. Exxon Corporation, 1998 OK 70, ¶ 1, 969 P.2d 337, 342. Further, this Court reviews de novo whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard in granting certification and will reverse the order if a question of law was decided incorrectly. Masquat v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation, 2008 OK 67, ¶ 8, 195 P.3d at 52, citing Scoufos, 2001 OK 113, ¶ 1, 41 P.3d 366, 367.

CHOICE OF LAW ANALYSIS

¶ 8 As stated above, Plaintiffs contend COCA completely ignored this Court's decision in Ysbrand v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. by focusing on the place of delivery of the trucks, rather than Ford's or Williams' principal places of business, Michigan and Florida, respectively.¹¹ They argue that Ysbrand requires the law of the state or states with the "most significant relationship"¹² to the dispute to be applied in an automobile breach of warranty case.

¶ 9 In Ysbrand, the plaintiffs brought a lawsuit against DaimlerChrysler Corp., the manufacturer of minivans...