Ford Motor Co. v. Moore
| Decision Date | 13 March 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 73A05-0710-CV-552.,73A05-0710-CV-552. |
| Citation | 905 N.E.2d 418 |
| Parties | FORD MOTOR COMPANY and TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc., Appellants-Defendants, v. Sally MOORE, Personal Representative of the Estate of Daniel A. Moore, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Nelson D. Alexander, Eric A. Riegner, Maggie L. Smith, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant, Ford Motor Company.
Mary K. Reeder, Riley, Bennett & Egloff, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Damond R. Mace, Andrew R. Kruppa, Pro Hac Vice, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P., Cleveland, OH, Attorneys for Appellant, TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc.
David W. Stone IV, Stone Law Office & Legal Research, Anderson, IN, Richard S. Eynon, David M. Brinley, Eynon Law Group, P.C., Columbus, IN, Richard L. Denney, Lydia Joann Barrett, Pro Hac Vice, Denney & Barrett, Norman, OK, Attorneys for Appellee.
Ford Motor Co. ("Ford") & TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc. ("TRW") appeal following the denial of their Motion to Correct Error, which challenged a jury verdict in favor of Sally Moore, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Daniel A. Moore ("the Estate"), upon the Estate's product negligence claim. We reverse.
Ford and TRW challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, the evidentiary rulings of the trial court, and the denial of Ford's request for a mistrial. We find dispositive a single issue: whether the Estate presented sufficient evidence to establish its product negligence claim.
On December 20, 2001, Daniel Moore, the operator and sole occupant of a 1997 Ford XLT Explorer manufactured by Ford, was traveling southbound on I-65 in Shelby County, Indiana when his left front tire tread separated. The Explorer left the traveled portion of the roadway, continued up a sloped wall under a bridge overpass, hit a curb with the right front wheel at fifty miles per hour, launched approximately ten feet into the air, continued forward for approximately sixty feet, landed, and rolled several times. Moore was wearing a properly fastened seatbelt that had been manufactured for Ford by TRW. Nevertheless, Moore was ejected from the vehicle through the sunroof, which had been closed and latched prior to the crash. Moore died at the scene of the accident.
The Estate brought a lawsuit against Ford, TRW, The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, and Renner Motors, Inc. Claims against the latter two defendants were settled. On February 22, 2007, the trial of the Estate's claims against TRW and Ford commenced.
Initially, the Estate alleged that the Ford Explorer was negligently designed in several respects. Allegedly, the vehicle had handling and stability defects causing loss of control and rollover, the sunroof brackets were of insufficient strength, allowing a separation and portal of ejection, and the seatbelt assembly allowed excessive spool-out of the webbing material resulting in slackness and failure of restraint. During the trial, the Estate also advanced the theory that the seatbelt slider bar was of inadequate strength. However, the jury was instructed not to consider any evidence of this alleged defect. The trial court also issued a ruling to the effect that a laminated glass defect argument implicitly introduced was "out of the case." (Tr. 883.)
Ford and TRW contended that Daniel's injuries resulted from the unusually severe nature of the crash and not from a defective product. Moreover, Ford and TRW alleged that the seatbelt assembly and sunroof design complied with applicable governmental regulations and were state-of-the-art designs. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury was instructed that it could return a verdict against Ford and for the Estate if it had proven that Ford placed into the stream of commerce a defectively designed, unreasonably dangerous product and was negligent in the design of the product, with that product being either the seatbelt assembly or the sunroof. The jury was instructed that it could return a verdict against TRW and for the Estate if it had proven that TRW placed into the stream of commerce a defectively designed, unreasonably dangerous product and was negligent in the design of the product, with that product being the seatbelt assembly.
The jury determined that damages were $25,000,000 and apportioned fault as follows: Daniel Moore—33%, TRW—5%, Ford—31%, and (Non-party) Goodyear— 31%. Accordingly, the verdict against TRW was $1,250,000 and the verdict against Ford was $7,750,000.
When, as here, the jury has returned a general verdict and the appellant argues that the evidence is not sufficient to support it but does not challenge the jury instructions, the general verdict will be sustained if the evidence is sufficient to sustain any theory of liability. Estate of Dyer v. Doyle, 870 N.E.2d 573, 584 (Ind. Ct.App.2007), trans. denied. In this case, the jury was instructed upon a products liability claim based upon an alleged design defect, which constitutes a negligence theory. The jury was further instructed that the alleged design defect was either the seatbelt assembly or the sunroof.
Indiana Code Section 34-20-2-1 provides:
Except as provided in section 3 of this chapter, a person who sells, leases, or otherwise puts into the stream of commerce any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to any user or consumer or to the user's or consumer's property is subject to liability for physical harm caused by that product to the user or consumer or to the user's or consumer's property if:
(1) that user or consumer is in the class of persons that the seller should reasonably foresee as being subject to the harm caused by the defective condition;
(2) the seller is engaged in the business of selling the product; and
(3) the product is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial alteration in the condition in which the product is sold by the person sought to be held liable under this article.
Indiana Code Section 34-20-2-2 provides:
The rule stated in section 1 of this chapter applies although:
(1) The seller has exercised all reasonable care in the manufacture and preparation of the product; and
(2) The user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller.
However, in an action based on an alleged design defect in the product or based on an alleged failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions regarding the use of the product, the party making the claim must establish that the manufacturer or seller failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances in designing the product or in providing the warnings or instructions.
(emphasis added).
Indiana's Product Liability Act, partially quoted above, imposes liability upon sellers of a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to any user or consumer. Ford Motor Co. v. Rushford, 868 N.E.2d 806, 809 (Ind.2007). The Act governs actions brought by a user or consumer against a manufacturer or seller for physical harm caused by a product, regardless of the substantive legal theory or theories upon which the action is brought. Id.; Ind.Code § 34-20-1-1. The Estate alleged design defects and thus proceeded under a negligence theory. See Ind.Code § 34-20-2-2.
To prevail on a negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove: (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty by the defendant; and (3) an injury to the plaintiff proximately caused by the breach. Ford, 868 N.E.2d at 810. The parties agree that Ford and TRW had a duty of care with regard to Moore as a consumer; they contest whether there was a breach of that duty and consequent injury. "[I]n an action based on an alleged design defect in the product ..., the party making the claim must establish that the manufacturer or seller failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances in designing the product[.]" Ind.Code § 34-20-2-2.
Here, the precipitating event was the tire failure. Nonetheless, under the "doctrine of crashworthiness," a motor vehicle manufacturer may be liable for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident where a manufacturing or design defect, though not the cause of the accident, caused or enhanced the injuries. Miller v. Todd, 551 N.E.2d 1139, 1140 (Ind.1990). In effect, the doctrine expands the proximate cause requirements to include enhanced injuries. Barnard v. Saturn Corp., 790 N.E.2d 1023, 1032 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), trans. denied. The plaintiff in a crashworthiness case has the burden of proving that the manufacturer breached its duty in a manner that proximately caused injury to the plaintiff. Miller, 551 N.E.2d at 1141. "Defectiveness" from a crashworthiness standpoint is not merely the conclusion that a product failed and caused injury, but that the product failed to provide the consumer with reasonable protection under the circumstances surrounding a particular accident. Id. at 1143. "A claimant should be able to demonstrate that a feasible safer, more practicable product design would have afforded better protection." Id.1
The Miller standard was restated succinctly in Pries v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 31 F.3d 543, 546 (7th Cir.1994):
Indiana requires the plaintiff to show that another design not only could have prevented the injury but also was cost-effective under general negligence principles. Rosenbluth testified that particular additional devices would have kept the belt tight in a rollover, but he conceded that no car in production anywhere in the world in 1988 used the combination of devices he favored. This, coupled with the absence of data about either the costs of additional precautions or the aggregate injuries avoidable by using them, raises a serious question whether failure to adopt such a combination was negligent.
In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kaiser v. Johnson & Johnson, 18-2944
...claim "proceeded in negligence ..., [the plaintiff] was required to provide proof of an alternative design." Ford Motor Co. v. Moore , 905 N.E.2d 418, 427 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). The manufacturers defended this conclusion in the state supreme court, contending that the plaintiff had to provid......
-
Trw Vehicle Safety Sys. Inc. v. Moore
...to support the jury's verdicts against Ford and TRW, the Court of Appealsreversed as to both defendants. Ford Motor Co. v. Moore, 905 N.E.2d 418 (Ind.Ct.App.2009). We granted transfer and now reverse the judgment as to TRW, reverse the allocation of fault to nonparty Goodyear, reverse the d......
-
Green v. State Of Ind.
... ... Moore, 678 N.E.2d 1258, 1261 (Ind. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1079 (1998). "Isolated mistakes, poor ... ...
-
Leal v. Tsa Stores, Inc.
...Indeed, "[i]n plain words, an assertion is only a hypothesis until there is evidence to support its truth." Ford Motor Co. v. Moore, 905 N.E.2d 418, 431 (Ind.App. 2009) (opinion vacated on other grounds). Here, as East Coast states, Leal has not even attempted to prove more than the "mere a......