Desoto v. Ford Motor Co.

• Decision Date: 30 January 2008
• Docket Number: No. 07-1097.,07-1097.
• Citation: Desoto v. Ford Motor Co., 975 So.2d 195 (La. App. 2008)
• Parties: Clint DESOTO, et al. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana

975 So.2d 195

Clint DESOTO, et al. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.

No. 07-1097.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

January 30, 2008.

Robert G. Nida, Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell, Alexandria, LA, for Plaintiffs/Appellees Clint Desoto, Jayleen Desoto.

Robert W. Maxwell, James C. Rather, Jr., McCranie, Sistrunk, Anzelmo, Hardy, Maxwell & McDaniel, Covington, LA, for Defendants/Appellants Ford Motor Company, Hixson Autoplex of Alexandria, Inc.

Court composed of OSWALD A. DECUIR, MICHAEL G. SULLIVAN, and JAMES T. GENOVESE, Judges.

SULLIVAN, Judge.

In this products liability case, the plaintiffs assert that their 2000 Ford F150 truck caught fire as the result of a manufacturing defect. The manufacturer and the seller appeal the trial court's judgment in plaintiffs' favor. For the following reasons, we reverse.

Facts

On May 21, 2005, Clint and Jayleen Desoto's 2000 Ford F150 pickup truck caught on fire during the early morning hours while they were sleeping. The evening before the fire, Mrs. Desoto had parked the truck, which had a manual transmission, in gear near the front of their mobile home. The Desotos were awakened early the next morning when they heard a loud noise and felt their mobile home begin to shake. They ran outside and saw the truck against the mobile home.

Mr. Desoto testified that the truck was making a cranking noise and that the rear wheels were spinning. About the same time, he saw flames burst through the hood of the truck. The burning truck caught the mobile home on fire where it had contact with the mobile home. Mr. Desoto was able to extinguish the mobile home fire but was unable to extinguish the truck fire.

Mrs. Desoto called 911. The volunteer fire department arrived while the truck was burning; the firemen pulled it away from the trailer and extinguished the fire. The firemen were unable to determine the source of the fire.

The Desotos filed a claim with their insurance company and were paid approximately $5,000 for their loss. After paying the Desotos, the insurance company took possession of the truck then had it destroyed.

After the fire, the Desotos learned that Ford had issued a safety recall on certain vehicles, including their truck, because the speed control deactivation switch could melt, smolder, or catch on fire. Mr. Desoto initially believed that someone had been trying to steal the truck when the fire occurred. However, after learning of the recall, he thought otherwise, and he and Mrs. Desoto filed suit against Ford and the dealership from which they purchased the truck, claiming the fire was caused by a redhibitory defect. The truck had 45,000 miles on the odometer when purchased and 165,000 miles on the odometer when the fire occurred. Mr. Desoto testified that he performed routine maintenance on the truck but no major repairs. He had no knowledge of any repairs made by the previous owner(s).

The matter was tried on the merits. At trial, the Desotos presented their testimony, the testimony of a volunteer fireman, documentation concerning the recall by Ford, photographs of the truck and mobile home while the fire was burning and after the fire was extinguished, and correspondence from Ford in support of their claims. Ford presented the testimony of Larry Helton, an expert in fire and explosion investigation. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court applied the evidentiary doctrine of res ipsa loquitor and awarded judgment in favor of the Desotos, finding the truck's speed control deactivation switch caused the fire. The trial court awarded the following damages:

  Loss of Truck                   $4,500
                  Damage to Mobile Home            1,800
                  General Damages Jayleen Desoto     500
                  General Damages Clint Desoto       250
                  Attorney Fees                    3,000
                

Ford appealed, assigning error with the trial court's determination that the speed control deactivation switch caused the fire. The Desotos answered the appeal, seeking increases in their general damage awards, general damages for the children who were present during the fire, and an increase in attorney fees for work performed on appeal.

Standard of Review

Ford argues that the Desotos did not prove the existence of a defect which caused their truck to catch fire. Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal issue. Darbonne v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-551 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/00), 774 So.2d 1022, (citing Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541 (La.2/6/98), 708 So.2d 731). Under Louisiana jurisprudence, the manifest error standard of review is not applicable if a trial court commits legal error which interdicts the fact-finding process. Id. In such situations, the appellate court should make its own independent de novo review of the record and determine by a preponderance of the evidence if the record is complete. Insufficiency of the evidence arguments apply when, as here, the appellant argues that the party with the burden of proof lacks the necessary evidence to tip the scales over to the level of the applicable standard. In reviewing the trial court's judgment, we must still resolve any factual conflicts by application of the manifest error rule and cannot disturb express or implied factual findings of the trier of fact. Id.

Discussion

The supreme court observed in Lawson v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc., 05-257, pp. 7-8 (La.9/6/06), 938 So.2d 35, 40, that "[a] products liability claim is, by its own nature, extremely `fact-intensive,' and as such, the heart of [a plaintiff's] claim lies with the sufficiency of the evidence submitted at trial."

Pursuant to La.R.S. 9:2800.54(A), a plaintiff who asserts a products liability claim must prove that the damage for which he seeks to recover was "proximately caused by a characteristic of the product that renders the product unreasonably dangerous." The supreme court held in Lawson that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable to product liability actions; however, the doctrine must be applied sparingly. Id. This court's explanation of the doctrine was accepted by the supreme court in Lawson:

A plaintiff's burden of proof in a civil suit is generally preponderance of the evidence. He can satisfy his burden of proof with direct or circumstantial evidence. Sonnier v. Bayou State Mobile Homes, Inc., 96-1458 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/2/97), 692 So.2d 698, writ denied, 97-1575 (La.10/3/97), 701 So.2d 201. Circumstantial evidence is "evidence of one fact, or of a set of facts, from which the existence of the fact to be determined may reasonably be inferred." W. Page Keeton, et al., Prosser & Keeton on the Law of Torts § 39, at 242 (5th ed.1984). When direct evidence of a defendant's negligence is not available, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur assists the plaintiff in presenting a prima facie case of negligence. Cangelosi v. Our Lady of the Lake Reg'l Med. Ctr., 564 So.2d 654 (La.1989). Res ipsa loquitur is applicable when the circumstances surrounding an accident are so unusual as to give rise to an inference of negligence or liability on the part of the defendant and that, under such circumstances, the only reasonable and fair conclusion is that the accident resulted from a breach of duty or omission on the part of the defendant. Id.

If applicable, the doctrine allows the trier of fact to infer negligence from the circumstances of the event. Id. Generally, three criteria must be present for the doctrine...