Newton v. Ford Motor Co.

• Decision Date: 05 May 2009
• Docket Number: No. SC 89610.,SC 89610.
• Citation: 282 S.W.3d 825
• Parties: Shonnie NEWTON, et al., Appellants, Michael Nolte and Barbie Nolte, Appellants, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

282 S.W.3d 825

Shonnie NEWTON, et al., AppellantsMichael Nolte and Barbie Nolte, Appellants, v.FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Respondent.

No. SC 89610.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.

May 5, 2009.

Edward D. Robertson, Mary D. Winter, Anthony L. DeWitt, Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson & Gorny, P.C., Jefferson City, MO, J. Kent Emison, Brett A. Emison, Langdon & Emison, Lexington, MO, Grant L. Davis, Scott S. Bethune, Timothy L. Brake, Davis, Bethune & Jones, L.L.C., Kansas City, MO, for Appellants.

Ann K. Covington, Bryan Cave LLP, Jefferson City, MO, Peter W. Herzog, Bryan Cave LLP, St. Louis, MO, James P. Feeney, Clay A. Guise, Brittany M. Schultz, Dykema Gossett, PLLC, Bloomfield Hills, MI, Paul A. Williams, Schook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Kansas City, MO, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Introduction

After Highway Patrol Trooper Michael Newton stopped Michael Nolte for a traffic violation on Interstate 70, Paul Daniel, driving a Trade Winds Distributing, Inc. truck, rammed the highway patrol car in which Newton and Nolte were sitting.The patrol car exploded.Trooper Newton died, and Nolte sustained serious injuries.

In the hotly contested trial of this case — with claims for wrongful death and serious personal injury arising from the manufacture of the Ford patrol vehicle — the trial court ruled that four prior incidents of gas tank explosions would be admissible to show that Ford had notice of explosions after it had remedied a defect in the car's fuel system.The trial judge ruled inadmissible all evidence of explosions that occurred after the Newton accident.Despite this ruling, during trial, Ford in its own case presented evidence that, including the Newton explosion, there had been a total of 11 such incidents, four occurring before the explosion in this case and six occurring after the Newton explosion.In final argument, the trial court erroneously barred plaintiffs' counsel from referring to the other explosion cases in evidence, mistakenly believing that, as per the trial court's initial ruling on the issue, the accidents had been excluded.Ford's attorney was able to capitalize on the error by arguing that the sole defect in the fuel system had been remedied.Due to the trial court's erroneous ruling, plaintiffs were barred from using evidence of the six post-Newton accidents to rebut this argument.

The jury returned a verdict against plaintiffs and in favor of Ford and a verdict in favor of plaintiffs against Trade Winds Distributing, Inc., the employer of the driver of the pick-up truck that caused the collision by striking the patrol car.The jury's verdict against Trade Winds awarded $4 million in damages to Newton and $4.5 million to the Noltes.The judgment against Trade Winds was not appealed and has become final.

In Newton's and the Noltes' post-trial motions on the verdict in favor of Ford, the trial court acknowledged its error during final argument but overruled the motion for new trial, holding that the error did not prejudice the plaintiffs.

The determination of prejudice rests largely within the discretion of the trial court as the referee at the scene of the contest.There are cases, however, where a replay of the scene, in an appellate court far removed from the heat of the contest, shows that the error was, indeed, prejudicial.When evidence admitted during trial is excluded from being discussed in final argument, an appellate court presumes that the exclusion was prejudicial.This later appellate review also is influenced by whether the party benefiting from the trial court's mistake leaves well enough alone or uses the mistake to its advantage.Here, Ford did not leave well enough alone.There does not appear to be a sufficient basis to rebut the presumption of prejudice.The trial court's determination that plaintiffs did not suffer prejudice gives way to this Court's conclusion that the error in excluding argument as to the evidence of the other explosions denied plaintiffs a fair trial against Ford.

The judgment in favor of Ford is reversed, and the case is remanded.

Facts and Background

While patrolling Interstate 70 on the morning of May 22, 2003, State TrooperMichael Newton stopped eastbound driver Michael Nolte for a minor traffic violation.Both vehicles pulled onto the shoulder of the highway, and Trooper Newton asked Nolte to accompany him to the patrol car so Newton could write up a warning for the traffic violation.While both men sat in the patrol car, Paul Daniel, the driver of the Trade Winds pick-up truck pulling an empty trailer, was traveling eastbound on I-70.As he neared the patrol car, Daniel veered onto the shoulder of the interstate and collided with Trooper Newton's vehicle.Upon impact, the patrol car burst into flames, killing Trooper Newton.Nolte survived but sustained very serious burns as a result of the explosion.Because neither man broke any bones in the collision, the evidence indicated that the injuries probably would not have been as serious if the fire had not occurred.

PlaintiffsMichael Nolte, his wife Barbie Nolte and Shonnie Newton, the widow of Trooper Newton, brought an action against Ford Motor Company, the manufacturer of the patrol car, and Trade Winds Distributing, Inc., Daniel's employer.The claim against Trade Winds was for the negligence of its driver, Daniels.Plaintiffs asserted both negligence and strict products liability claims against Ford on the basis that the anti-spill valve and placement of the fuel tank behind the rear axle of the patrol car were defects that rendered the patrol car unreasonably dangerous.Plaintiffs argued that the unsafe placement of the fuel tank and the defective design of the anti-spill valve caused the explosion that killed Trooper Newton and injured Michael Nolte.

The anti-spill valve and the placement of the fuel tank in the Crown Victoria Police Interceptor

At trial, plaintiffs argued that a defect in the anti-spill valve of the patrol car, a Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor, coupled with the defective placement of the fuel tank behind the car's rear axle caused the explosion that killed Trooper Newton and injured Nolte.The anti-spill valve consists of a spring and sealing flange and is designed pursuant to federal environmental regulations to prevent escape of vapors and liquid from the fuel tank.The anti-spill valve is located inside the fuel tank filler tube, the tube through which gasoline pumped at the filling station travels to the patrol car's fuel tank.Plaintiffs argued at trial that, due to a defect, the anti-spill valve failed to prevent gasoline from escaping from the fuel tank when Trooper Newton's patrol car was struck by Daniel's truck and that, upon impact, gasoline spewed out of the patrol car's fuel tank filler tube and ignited, resulting in the fatal explosion.

In addition to arguing that the anti-spill valve was defective, plaintiffs also argued that the placement of the patrol car's fuel tank was an unreasonably dangerous defect.The fuel tank in the Crown Victoria patrol car is located behind the car's rear axle, a location that, according to plaintiffs, places the fuel tank within the patrol car's "crush zone," the area likely to be crushed in an accident.As a result of this defective placement, according to plaintiffs, the force of the collision caused the neck of the patrol car's fuel tank filler tube to tear from the fuel tank itself, resulting in a significant leakage of gasoline at the severance site.Plaintiffs contended that this leakage, coupled with the leakage resulting from the failure of the anti-spill valve, caused the explosion in this case.

The shield upgrade kit

Both sides presented evidence at trial concerning the "shield upgrade kit" developed by Ford in 2002 for use on Crown Victoria Police Interceptor patrol cars.The shield upgrade kit was designed to cover components of the rear axle in order to prevent the shielded components from puncturing the fuel tank during rear-impact collisions.According to the testimony of Ford's executives and expert witnesses, the shield upgrade kit was developed in response to field reports of fuel leakage resulting from puncture of the Crown Victoria Police Interceptor's fuel tank during rear-impact collisions.Trooper Newton's patrol car was equipped with the shield upgrade kit.

Evidence of other accidents involving Crown Victoria Police Interceptors equipped with the shield upgrade kit

Prior to trial, plaintiffs expressed their intention to introduce evidence that there had been 11 rear-impact collisions, including Trooper Newton's accident, in which fuel leakage from Crown Victoria Police Interceptors equipped with the shield upgrade kit had resulted in fires.Of these 11 "post-upgrade" accidents, four preceded Trooper Newton's accident.The other six post-upgrade accidents occurred after Trooper Newton's collision.

At a pre-trial hearing on the issue, Ford objected to admission of the 11 post-upgrade accidents, arguing that they were not "of like character that occurred under substantially the same circumstances and resulted from the same cause" and were, therefore, inadmissible under Lopez v. Three Rivers Elec. Co-op., Inc.,26 S.W.3d 151, 159(Mo. banc 2000).Plaintiffs argued that, even if not admissible as substantially similar accidents, evidence of the post-upgrade collisions with fuel leakage was admissible to show that Ford had notice of the continued danger of gasoline leakage during rear-impact collisions from Crown Victoria patrol cars equipped with shield upgrade kits.

The trial court agreed with plaintiffs, ruling that evidence of the other accidents was admissible to show Ford's notice of danger caused by fuel leakage in patrol cars equipped with shield upgrade kits.Because only the accidents that occurred prior to Trooper Newton's were relevant to show such notice, however, the trial court limited admission of evidence regarding other accidents to the four "pre-Newton" col...