Linert v. Foutz
| Decision Date | 29 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 2014–1940.,2014–1940. |
| Citation | 149 Ohio St.3d 469,75 N.E.3d 1218,2016 Ohio 8445 |
| Parties | LINERT et al., Appellees, v. FOUTZ; Ford Motor Company, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
SL Chapman, L.L.C., Robert W. Schmieder II, and Robert J. Evola ; and Green Haines Sgambati Co., L.P.A., and Richard A. Abrams, Youngstown, for appellees.
Thompson Hine, L.L.P., Elizabeth B. Wright, and Conor A. McLaughlin, Cleveland; and Squire Patton Boggs, L.L.P., Pierre H. Bergeron, Cincinnati, and Larisa M. Vaysman, for appellant.
Rourke & Blumenthal, L.L.P., Johnathan R. Stoudt, and Robert P. Miller, Columbus, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Association for Justice.
Tucker Ellis, L.L.P., John P. Palumbo, and Benjamin C. Sassé, Cleveland, urging reversal for amicus curiae Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc.
Jones Day, Yvette McGee Brown, Chad A. Readler, and Kenneth M. Grose, Columbus, urging reversal for amici curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Association of Manufacturers, National Federation of Independent Small Business Legal Center, Ohio Chamber of Commerce, and Ohio Manufacturers' Association.
{¶ 1} In this appeal, appellees, Ross and Brenda Linert, contend that appellant, Ford Motor Company, is responsible for the severe injuries Ross sustained in a motor-vehicle accident caused when an intoxicated driver, Adrien Foutz, struck Ross's 2005 Crown Victoria Police Interceptor ("CVPI") from behind, triggering a fuel-fed fire.
{¶ 2} We address the Linerts' claim that the trial court should have instructed the jury on R.C. 2307.76(A)(2), Ohio's statute governing manufacturers' postmarket duty to warn consumers of risks associated with a product that are not discovered until after the product has been sold.
{¶ 3} We hold that the trial court properly refused to provide an instruction on the postmarket duty to warn, and accordingly, we reverse the appellate court's judgment.
The accident giving rise to the Linerts' claims
{¶ 4} On November 11, 2007, Ross Linert, a veteran police officer with the Austintown Township Police, was on patrol in a department-issued 2005 CVPI manufactured by Ford. Ross was traveling at approximately 35 miles per hour, the posted speed limit, when he was struck from behind by a car driven by Foutz. Foutz, whose blood-alcohol level was more than three times the legal limit in Ohio, was in a 4,000 pound Cadillac Deville traveling at speeds estimated at 90 to 110 miles per hour—three times the posted speed limit.
{¶ 5} Ross alleged that upon collision, the CVPI's fuel-sender unit1 separated from the fuel tank, creating a hole in the fuel tank that released fuel and ignited, spreading fire from the rear of the vehicle into the passenger compartment. Ross was able to escape, but he sustained severe, painful burns to nearly a third of his body, including his face, head, arms, and legs. He is now disabled.
The Linerts' claims
{¶ 6} Ross initially filed a claim for relief in negligence against only Foutz.2 In an amended complaint, Ross and Brenda Linert subsequently added product-liability and malice claims against Ford to the negligence action against Foutz. The Linerts' failure-to-warn claim3 asserts that if Ford had warned customers of risks associated with the placement of the vehicle's fuel tank and the lack of a fire-suppression system, Ross would have survived his accident with minor injuries. Ford counters that the trial court properly refused to instruct the jury on R.C. 2307.76(A)(2), Ohio's statute governing manufacturers' postmarket duty to warn consumers of risks associated with the product that are not discovered until after the product has been sold, because the statute does not require warnings on all known dangers.
The Panther-platform design
{¶ 7} Ford introduced the Panther-platform design in 1979 and used it for several large civilian and law-enforcement four-door sedan models, including the Mercury Grand Marquis, the Ford Crown Victoria, the Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor ("CVPI"), and the Lincoln Town Car. Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co., 2011 IL 110096, 353 Ill.Dec. 327, 955 N.E.2d 1138, ¶ 8. The design of these models presented a different fuel-tank configuration in which the tank was located aft of the axle but between the two rear wheels, about 40 inches from the rear bumper and in front of the trunk. Id. at ¶ 9. By 1981, however, Ford began designing new passenger-car models with the fuel tank located forward of the axle. Id. A decade later, most new Ford models were being manufactured with fuel tanks forward of the axle. Id.
{¶ 8} There have been many claims of defects associated with Panther-platform vehicles in litigation around the country for many years. See, e.g., Nolte v. Ford Motor Co., 458 S.W.3d 368 (Mo.App.2014) (); Annelli v. Ford Motor Co., Conn.Super.Ct. No. 4001345, 2007 WL 3087959 (Oct. 4, 2007) (); In re Ford Motor Co. Crown Victoria Police Interceptor Prods. Liab. Litigation, 259 F.Supp.2d 1366 (J.P.M.L.2003) (); see also Perry & McGroder, Crash–and–Burn Cruisers that Kill, Trial (Nov. 2003) 52 (describing claims arising from fires in CVPIs). The Linerts' case presents a similar claim.
Evidence at trial
{¶ 9} The Linerts' evidence at trial supported the theory that Ford's design of the CVPI was defective because of the placement of the fuel tank in the vehicle. To establish that claim, they presented the testimony of Mark Arndt, an engineer and defective-design expert who studies fuel-system failures in motor vehicles, including the CVPI, and postcrash fires in particular types of motor vehicles.
{¶ 10} Arndt testified that the preferred placement of a gas tank in a vehicle is forward of the axle in the "midship" location because there, the tank would be less likely to be crushed or punctured during a collision. And he testified that Ford could have placed the CVPI's gas tank forward of the axle.
{¶ 11} Arndt also opined that the CVPI's fuel tank was "extremely vulnerable" to punctures from items in the trunk of a police cruiser and testified that Ford had developed a "trunk pack" because of the number of "failures" in crashes in which items in police cruisers, e.g., jacks, crowbars, axes, and guns, had punctured the CVPI's trunk wall and then the fuel tank. The packs contained layers of plastic and Kevlar, a tough material used in bulletproof vests, to prevent items in the trunk from penetrating the trunk wall. And he described the pack as promoting "loading the trunk in a way that did not align objects in the trunk so that they would go through the tank."
{¶ 12} But more relevant for purposes here is Arndt's testimony that there had been 34 other accidents in which a Panther-platform vehicle was involved in a rear-impact collision and sustained damage to its fuel-containment system, resulting in a fire and burn injury or death to a vehicle's occupant. Of those 34 prior incidents, Arndt indicated that six involved the dislodgement of the fuel-sender unit.
{¶ 13} The Linerts used this evidence to establish that Ford had had notice of the alleged defects with the design, placement, and manufacturing of the fuel system in the CVPI and that Ford could have used an alternative design for the placement of the fuel tank that "would have performed without leakage." Notably, however, Ford secured several concessions during its cross-examination of Arndt.
{¶ 14} Arndt conceded that there is a risk of postcollision fire for all vehicles, regardless of where the fuel tank is located, and that no fuel system is guaranteed to be leak-proof in a high-speed, rear-impact collision, no matter how "solid" the design of a fuel system or the placement of the fuel tank in the vehicle. Fuel-system ruptures, punctures, or compromises cannot be eliminated. He also admitted that the puncture of a fuel tank during an accident does not mean that the vehicle is defective, conceding that the risk of a "rear-end postcollision fire for police vehicles is rare" and that fires in CVPIs caused by rear impact are the most severe impacts on the roadways.
{¶ 15} It was undisputed at trial that in October 2007, two years after the Austintown Police Department acquired Ross's CVPI, Ford implemented the "crimp improvement project" or "crimp tooling project" to increase, by one millimeter, the amount of sheet metal that was folded over the fuel-sender retention ring.4 The project began after Jon Olson, a Ford design-analysis engineer, heard of "real-world" incidents regarding fuel-tank dislodgments and asked Ford's manufacturing-process team, including Ford fuel-tank-manufacturing-process engineer Steven Haskell, if the crimp could be improved.
{¶ 16} Haskell and other Ford manufacturing-process engineers testified that the project began in January 2007 and that by October 2007, the crimp had been improved. At the same time, however, Haskell and other Ford witnesses made clear that Ford had met all its manufacturing specifications or standards for the fuel tank before and after the crimp-tooling project. They agreed, however, that the improvement made the fuel tank safer, more crashworthy, and more "robust." And although Haskell acknowledged that the improved crimp could make the fuel tank more crashworthy in some accidents, he never quantified or qualified that possibility. Indeed, earlier in his testimony, Haskell had made clear that he was not "a crash expert" and could...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Biehl v. B.E.T., Ltd.
...assertion or otherwise provide any evidence that Defendants knew, or should have known about a risk involving flywheels. See Linert v. Foutz, 2016-Ohio-8445, ¶ 38, 149 Ohio St.3d 469, 479, 75 N.E.3d 1218, 1228, rec'd denied, 2017-Ohio-573, ¶ 38, 148 Ohio St.3d 1413, 69 N.E.3d 752 (holding t......
-
Whitt v. CP
...an abuse of discretion. Linert v. Foutz, 7th Dist. No. 11 MA 189, 2014-Ohio-4431, 20 N.E.3d 1047, ¶ 16, rev'd on other grounds 149 Ohio St.3d 469, 75 N.E.3d 1218, citing Nakoff v. Fairview Gen. Hosp., 75 Ohio St.3d 254, 256, 662 N.E.2d 1 (1996). {¶58} When the trial court does not rule on a......