Nolte v. Ford Motor Co.
| Decision Date | 09 December 2014 |
| Docket Number | WD 75371 |
| Citation | 458 S.W.3d 368 |
| Parties | Michael J. Nolte and Barbie Nolte, Appellants, v. Ford Motor Company, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Grant L. Davis and Scott S. Bethune, Kansas City, MO, J. Kent Emison, Lexington, MO, for Appellants.
Susan Ford Robertson and J. Zachary Bickel, Kansas City, MO, for Respondent.
Before Division One: Cynthia L. Martin, Presiding Judge, and Mark D. Pfeiffer and Karen King Mitchell, Judges
Michael and Barbie Nolte (collectively “Nolte”) appeal the trial court's judgment, entered following a jury verdict in favor of Ford Motor Company, on their product liability claims related to the placement and design of the fuel storage system in Ford's 2003 Crown Victoria Police Interceptor.1 Nolte argues that the trial court erred in the admission and exclusion of certain evidence during trial. Because the trial court erroneously concluded that a government report is admissible without first determining that the report was both logically and legally relevant, we reverse and remand.
While patrolling Interstate 70 on the morning of May 22, 2003, State Trooper Michael 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, a 2003 Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor (CVPI), so that Newton could issue a warning for the traffic violation. While both men sat in the patrol car, Paul Daniel, the driver of a Trade Winds pick-up truck, pulling a goose-neck trailer, was traveling eastbound on I–70. As Daniel neared the patrol car, he 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.
Investigation of the fire revealed that it began in the left rear fender of the CVPI, at the area where the fuel filler neck extended between the fuel fill door and the fuel tank. When the truck crashed into the CVPI, the fuel filler neck was severed, allowing gasoline vapor to escape, which was then ignited by the friction sparks created from the impact.
Plaintiffs Michael 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 premised upon Daniel's negligence. Plaintiffs asserted both negligence and strict products liability claims against Ford on the basis that the design of the anti-spill valve, the placement of the fuel tank filler tube on the driver's side of the patrol car, and the placement of the fuel tank behind the rear axle of the patrol car were defects that rendered the patrol car unreasonably dangerous when put to its anticipated use.3
Plaintiffs argued that these defects, alone or in combination, caused the explosion that killed Trooper Newton and injured Nolte and were unreasonably dangerous given the CVPI's anticipated use. 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 a filling station travels to the patrol car's fuel tank. Plaintiffs argued 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. Plaintiffs also argued that the placement of the patrol car's fuel tank behind the car's rear axle was a defect because it placed the fuel tank within the patrol car's “crush zone,” the area designed to absorb energy from a rear-impact collision and prevent harm to occupants of the vehicle. According to Plaintiffs, the fuel tank placement was defective in that 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 amount of gasoline leakage at the severance site. Plaintiffs contended that these design defects caused the explosion in this case, rendering the CVPI unreasonably dangerous for use by law enforcement to both stop motorists and serve as a blocker vehicle on high-speed roadways.4
The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs on their claim against Trade Winds Distributing and awarded damages of $4 million to Newton and $4.5 million to the Noltes. On Plaintiffs' claim against Ford, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Ford, finding that Ford was not liable for the injuries sustained by Plaintiffs as a result of the collision.
Plaintiffs appealed, and the Missouri Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial due to an error made by the trial court in precluding Plaintiffs from arguing reasonable inferences from evidence the trial court mistakenly believed had not been admitted. Newton v. Ford Motor Co., 282 S.W.3d 825, 832 (Mo. banc 2009). Following remand, Trooper Newton's claims were settled, leaving only the Noltes as plaintiffs. Upon retrial, the jury again found in favor of Ford. The following facts are relevant to the second trial and Nolte's subsequent appeal.
On November 27, 2001, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a query,5 based upon consumer complaints and Ford's issuance of a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB),6 which recommended changes to certain hex bolts and U-brackets on the CVPI for the purpose of reducing post-rear-collision fires.7 The query was limited to model years 1992–2001 and to only Panther Platform vehicles (Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis, and Town Car). The report contained a variety of information gathered from inspections of post-crash subject vehicles, on-site and phone interviews with police personnel, and review of documents from Ford, General Motors, plaintiff attorneys, and NHTSA records.
The report provided a description of the Panther Platform fuel tank, identified the population of each model by year, described the TSB and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 301 (involving integrity of the fuel system), outlined the various design changes to the vehicles over the years, compared the Panther Platform vehicles with General Motors's similar B-body style vehicles, discussed several fire reports associated with both Panther Platform and B-body vehicles, and identified the various fuel tank failure modes. The ODI report further discussed the “Florida Highway Patrol [ ] Rear End Collision Study of 1999,”8 as well as anecdotal evidence from the California Highway Patrol.9 The report also identified a variety of tests Ford had run to evaluate vehicle performance in high-energy crashes. The report contained statements from Ford and described Ford's CVPI Police Officer Safety Action Plan. The report issued the following findings:
After making these individual findings, the ODI summarized its findings, stating that:
The available information regarding fuel tank failure mode, the risk of fire per fatal crash, field performance, and crash testing indicate that the performance of the subject vehicle in high-energy rear crashes is not unlike that of the most comparable peer vehicle, the GM B-body.
The ODI closed its query on October 3, 2002, giving the following reason:
Under the present circumstance, it is unlikely that further investigation would produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of a safety-related defect in the subject vehicles. Therefore, the investigation is closed based on the evidence available at this time. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by new or changed circumstances.
During the query, the Center for Auto Safety submitted a petition to NHTSA, seeking to upgrade and expand the scope of the query to a full investigation,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Linert v. Foutz
...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) (negligence and design-defect claims alleging improper placement of fuel tank in CVPI that was struck by motorist, causing a......
- Woods v. State
-
Baldridge v. Kan. City Pub. Sch.
...tends to lead the jury to decide the case on some basis other than the established propositions in the case." Nolte v. Ford Motor Co. , 458 S.W.3d 368, 383 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (internal quotations omitted). As stated above, KCPS provides no authority to explain why the removal of Baldridge......
-
Shallow v. Richard O. Follwell, D.O., & Richard O. Follwell, P.C.
...evidence, including expert testimony, bears the burden of establishing both its logical and its legal relevance. Nolte v. Ford Motor Co., 458 S.W.3d 368, 382 (Mo.App.W.D. 2014). To be legally relevant, the probative value, or usefulness, of the evidence sought to be admitted must not be out......