Parr v. Ford Motor Co.
Citation | 109 A.3d 682,2014 PA Super 281 |
Decision Date | 22 December 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 2793 EDA 2012,2793 EDA 2012 |
Parties | Joseph and April PARR, Husband and Wife, Individually and as Parents and Natural Guardians of Samantha Parr, Appellants v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, McCafferty Ford Sales, Inc. d/b/a McCafferty Auto Group, McCafferty Ford of Mechanicsburg, Inc., and McCafferty Ford Company, Appellees. |
Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
Richard C. Angino, Harrisburg, for appellants.
Dominic F. Perella, Washington, DC, for appellees.
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, SHOGAN, ALLEN, OTT, WECHT, STABILE AND JENKINS, JJ.
Plaintiffs–Appellants, Joseph and April Parr (“the Parrs”), husband and wife, individually and as parents and guardians of their minor daughter, Samantha Parr, appeal from the August 31, 2012 judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, which was entered following the denial of the Parrs' motion for post-trial relief. Appellees are Defendants Ford Motor Company, McCafferty Ford Sales, Inc. doing business as McCafferty Auto Group, McCafferty Ford of Mechanicsburg, Inc., and McCafferty Ford Company (collectively “Ford”). Following our review of the voluminous record, and in consideration of the applicable law and arguments of the parties, we affirm.
On July 21, 2009, the Parrs' 2001 Ford Excursion, which they purchased as a “used” vehicle in 2007, was struck by a van that ran a stop sign, causing the Parrs' vehicle to spin clockwise, hit a guardrail, and roll down a nineteen-foot embankment. Amended Complaint, 8/26/11, at ¶¶ 14, 26–28; N.T., 3/8/12, at 30. Joseph Parr was driving at the time of the accident; his wife, April Parr, their three minor children, and Margaret Parr, Joseph's mother, were occupants of the vehicle. Amended Complaint, 8/26/11, at ¶¶ 20–25; N.T., 3/8/12, at 31. All passengers, who all wore their seatbelts, were injured; occupants on the driver's side of the vehicle, Joseph Parr and children Tyler and Carilann Parr, sustained comparatively minor injuries. Amended Complaint, 8/26/11, at ¶¶ 20–25, 31. Margaret Parr, Joseph Parr's fifty-seven-year-old mother, who sat in the second row on the passenger side, is not involved in this case, and her injuries were not identified in the amended complaint.
Amended Complaint, 8/26/11, at ¶ 25.1 Daughter Samantha, who was sitting in the third row on the passenger side, sustained a fractured skull
, broken collarbone, fractured eye orbital, a lacerated liver, and facial lacerations. Amended Complaint, 8/26/11, at ¶ 30. April Parr, sitting in the front passenger seat, sustained a spinal cord injury and was rendered a quadriplegic. Amended Complaint, 8/26/11, at ¶ 29; N.T., 3/8/12, at 33.
Emergency responders employed the jaws of life2 to extract April Parr from the Excursion; during that process, the roof and pillar structures of the vehicle were destroyed. N.T., 3/9/12 (Afternoon Session), at 35–38. The parties stipulated that shortly after the accident in July 2009, the Parrs' Ford Excursion was released to the Parrs' insurer, which sold the vehicle, and the automobile was destroyed. N.T., 3/15/12 (Morning Session), at 30–31.
The Parrs filed a complaint against Ford Motor Company and the Ford dealership that sold them their 2001 Ford Excursion on December 28, 2009, and an amended complaint on August 26, 2011, contending that April Parr's and Samantha Parr's injuries resulted from roof crush when the automobile rolled down the embankment. Amended Complaint, 8/26/11, at ¶¶ 28, 40. The Parrs alleged that the vehicle's roof and restraint system were defectively designed under the crashworthiness doctrine of strict products liability, and they asserted additional claims sounding in negligence. Amended Complaint, 8/26/11.
Trial in the matter commenced on March 6, 2012, and continued over the ensuing three weeks, culminating on March 23, 2012, with a defense verdict. The jury indicated on the verdict form that the Parrs did not prove: (1) that the Excursion's roof design was defective when it “left the control of Ford and that there was an alternative, safer design that was practicable under the circumstances,” or (2) “that Ford was negligent in its design of the roof structure on the 2001 Ford Excursion when it left Ford's control and that there was an alternative, safer design that was practicable under the circumstances.” Jury Verdict Form, 3/23/12, at ¶¶ 1, 3. The jury thus did not reach the issues of causation or damages.
The Parrs filed post-trial motions on March 29, 2012. Both parties filed briefs, and the trial court denied the motions on August 31, 2012, entering judgment in favor of Ford that day. This timely appeal followed on September 10, 2012, in which the Parrs challenge several pretrial evidentiary rulings and an aspect of the trial court's charge to the jury. Both the trial court and the Parrs complied with Pa.R.A.P.1925.
A panel of this Court filed a memorandum affirming the judgment in favor of Ford. Parr v. Ford Motor Company, 2793 EDA 2012 (Pa.Super. filed December 24, 2013) (unpublished memorandum). Thereafter, the Parrs filed a motion for reargument en banc. We granted the motion and heard oral arguments on August 5, 2014. This matter is now ripe for disposition.
The Parrs raise the same four issues in this appeal that they identified in their Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, which are as follows:
The Parrs' Brief at 7–8.
We note initially that our Supreme Court adopted section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts in Webb v. Zern, 422 Pa. 424, 220 A.2d 853 (1966), and reaffirmed the Second Restatement's vitality in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., ––– Pa. ––––, 104 A.3d 328, 399 (2014) (). Section 402A states:
Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 402A (1965).
In order to prevail in such a product liability case, the plaintiff must establish: (1) that the product was defective; (2) that the defect existed when it left the hands of the defendant; and (3) that the defect caused the harm. Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc., 7 A.3d 830 (Pa.Super.2010). A product is defective “when it is not safe for its intended use.” Weiner v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 718 A.2d 305, 308 (Pa.Super.1998).
The crashworthiness doctrine most typically arises in the context of motor vehicle accidents. See, e.g., Raskin v. Ford Motor Co., 837 A.2d 518 (Pa.Super.2003). It was first explicitly recognized as a specific subset of product liability law by this Court in Kupetz v. Deere & Co., Inc., 435 Pa.Super. 16, 644 A.2d 1213 (1994), and is defined as “the protection that a motor vehicle affords its passenger against personal injury or death as a result of a motor vehicle accident.” Id. at 1218.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schuster v. Prestige Senior Mgmt., L.L.C.
...cert. granted, 316 Conn. 901, 111 A.3d 470 (2015) ; Vazquez v. Buhl, 150 Conn.App. 117, 137, 90 A.3d 331 (2014) ; Parr v. Ford Motor Co., 109 A.3d 682, 693 n. 8 (Pa.Super.Ct.2014), appeal denied, 123 A.3d 331(Pa.), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 557, 193 L.Ed.2d 430 (2015). Washingt......
-
E. Steel Constructors, Inc. v. Int'l Fid. Ins. Co.
...an evidentiary ruling must not only be erroneous, but also harmful or prejudicial to the complaining party. Parr v. Ford Motor Co. , 109 A.3d 682, 690-691 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations omitted), appeal denied , 633 Pa. 745, 123 A.3d 331 (2015), cert. denied , 577 U.S. 1008, 136 S. Ct. 557, 1......
-
Crespo v. Hughes
...an evidentiary ruling must not only be erroneous, but also harmful or prejudicial to the complaining party. Parr v. Ford Motor Co., 109 A.3d 682, 690–91 (Pa. Super. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted, formatting modified) (quoting Keystone Dedicated Logistics v. JGB Enter......
-
Hammons v. Ethicon, Inc., 1522 EDA 2016
...(2002). A party's destruction or loss of proof that is pertinent to a lawsuit can result in a variety of sanctions. Parr v. Ford Motor Co. , 109 A.3d 682 (Pa. Super. 2014).In reviewing the propriety of a sanction for spoliation, "we must determine whether the court abused its discretion." I......
-
Pennsylvania Superior Court Places Time Limit on Good Faith Withholding Under CASPA
...We review rulings on the grant or denial of a motion in limine for an abuse of discretion. Parr v. Ford Motor Co., 2014 PA Super 281, 109 A.3d 682, 690 (Pa.Super. 2014) (en banc).A "lost volume seller" is an injured party that would have entered into a subsequent contract, even if the first......