Ray v. Ford Motor Co.

• Decision Date: 10 March 1999
• Docket Number: No. A98A2159.,A98A2159.
• Citation: 514 S.E.2d 227,237 Ga. App. 316
• Parties: RAY v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

514 S.E.2d 227

237 Ga. App. 316

RAY v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY.

No. A98A2159.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

March 10, 1999.

Reconsideration Denied March 30, 1999.

Glover & Davis, J. Littleton Glover, Jr., Newnan, for appellant.

Long, Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, Mary D. Owens, Matthew T. Allen, Frederick N. Sager, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee. POPE, Presiding Judge.

On October 2, 1992, Ann W. Ray drove her 1989 Ford Mustang up the incline of her driveway into her carport. The car's rear tires came to rest just outside the lip of the carport pavement. Ray testified that based upon her usual habit, she believes that she placed the gear shift in the "park" position, although she has no specific recollection of doing so. She removed her keys and walked around the rear of the car to the passenger side to remove her four-month-old grandson from his car seat. Ray then noticed that the Mustang appeared to be rolling backward. She tried to run around behind the car to the driver's side, intending to stop the car from rolling. However, the car knocked her down and then ran over her, pinning her underneath.

Eileen Muzio, a neighbor who witnessed the accident, came to Ray's assistance. Taking the keys from Ray, Muzio jumped in the car and attempted to move the vehicle off Ray, but the car would not start. When Muzio looked down at the gear shift, she noticed that it was in the "drive" position. She then moved the gear shift to "park" and was able to start the engine and drive the car away from Ray.

Ray asserted claims against Ford Motor Company for negligence, fraud, breach of warranty and strict liability. The thrust of Ray's claims was her contention that the 1989 Mustang suffered from a design defect in that it lacked an ignition/transmission interlock device, which prevents the removal of the ignition key unless the transmission is in the "park" position. After a five-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Ford, and Ray appeals.

On appeal, Ray lists six separate enumerations of error. However, her brief is divided into only two sections of argument in violation of Court of Appeals Rule 27(c)(1), which requires that the sequence of arguments follow the order of the enumerations of error and that they be numbered accordingly. "Our requirements as to the form of appellate briefs were created, not to provide an obstacle, but to aid parties in presenting their arguments in a manner most likely to be fully and efficiently comprehended by this Court." (Punctuation omitted.) Bennett v. Moody, 225 Ga.App. 95, 96, 483 S.E.2d 350 (1997). Despite this error, we will exercise "our discretion ... to consider the [two] main arguments presented, to the degree that we discern the enumerated errors discussed. [Cits.]" (Footnote omitted.) Thomas Financial Group v. Standard Chartered Bank, 225 Ga.App. 879( 1), 485 S.E.2d 237 (1997). However, because Ray provides no citation of authority or argument relating to her first two enumerations, they are deemed abandoned under Court of Appeals Rule 27(c)(2).

1. Ray first contends that the trial court erred in granting Ford's motion in limine to exclude evidence and expert testimony about a Ford database listing prior instances of inadvertent vehicle movement in cars lacking the ignition/transmission interlock device. Ray sought to introduce this evidence to demonstrate that Ford had notice of such incidents when it made the decision to omit the interlock device from the 1989 Mustang. The trial court granted Ford's motion in limine, however, stating that Ray had failed to provide enough information to allow the court to determine whether incidents in the database were substantially similar to Ray's accident.

In product liability actions, evidence of other incidents involving the product is admissible, and relevant to the issues of notice of a defect and punitive damages, provided there is a showing of substantial similarity. [Cit.] Without a showing of substantial similarity, the evidence is irrelevant as a matter of law. [Cits.]

(Punctuation omitted.) Gen. Motors Corp. v. Moseley, 213 Ga.App. 875, 877(1), 447 S.E.2d 302 (1994).

The admission or exclusion of evidence is reviewed by an abuse of discretion standard. [Cit.] Questions of relevance are generally matters within the trial court's discretion, and it is not error to exclude evidence that is not related to an issue at trial. [Cit.]

American Assn. of Cab Cos. v. Olukoya, 233 Ga.App. 731, 733(1), 505 S.E.2d 761 (1998). See also Rose v. Figgie Intl., 229 Ga.App. 848, 850(1), 495 S.E.2d 77 (1997) (a decision to exclude evidence of similar incidents is reviewed for abuse of the trial court's discretion).

Ray sought to introduce evidence of two separate groups of prior incidents drawn from the Ford database. Ray's expert compiled these groups by sifting and re-ordering the information from the database. The expert was prepared to testify that he had discovered one group consisting of 546 incidents of inadvertent vehicle movement with a number of common factors: (1) the key was out of the lock or could be withdrawn from the lock; (2) the engine was not on; (3) no mechanical factor affected the accident; and (4) the shifting mechanism was not located on the steering column. Ray offered no further specifics about any of the 546 incidents. She argues that these factors were sufficient to demonstrate that the 546 incidents were substantially similar to Ray's accident because: (1) Ray had been able to remove her key from the Mustang; (2) the engine was not running; (3) her car had no mechanical problems that contributed to the accident; and (4) the Mustang had an automatic overdrive transmission, which included a floor-mounted gear shift. Ray also sought to introduce testimony regarding a group of 20,000 incidents of inadvertent vehicular movement, compiled without regard to the underlying circumstances of the incidents. She contends that this evidence was relevant to show the extent and seriousness of the problem.

In support of its motion to exclude this evidence, Ford submitted the affidavit of Lee C. Carr, a former Ford employee, whose job responsibilities included the compilation of the database. Carr stated that the database was actually five different databases compiled by Ford engineers and lawyers from a variety of sources, including consumer complaint and service records, attorneys, government officials, fleet operators, newspapers and consumer representatives. Additional information came from a hotline program Ford set up to solicit comments in response to an investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Thus, Ford argued that the information in the database was hearsay.

Carr's affidavit noted various problems with the database resulting from these sources and the method used to create the database. He noted that the incidents were not confined to any particular model or year and that some of the information dated back to the 1960s. Moreover, the information was encoded into the database by employees who had no personal knowledge of the events, but who were simply instructed to input the information from the various source documents into designated codes. The codes utilized were extremely broad, and any one designation could include a wide variety of fact patterns. If the source documents failed to contain certain information, it was entered as unknown or under multiple codes to indicate that several possibilities existed. The database also failed to take into account various underlying factors—such as whether the parking brake was engaged, whether the car was on level ground or an incline or whether the vehicle was unoccupied—because this information was unknown or missing from the source documents.

Further, Carr stated that the information in the database has not been verified, and at least some of the information is known to be inaccurate. Ford had also determined that the database contained a number of duplicate entries.

In Gen. Motors Corp. v. Moseley, 213 Ga. App. at 877-878, 447 S.E.2d 302, the plaintiffs sought to establish notice by referring to a number of prior lawsuits and deaths, which they claimed were similar to the defect at issue. However, they failed to provide any information regarding the incidents underlying the lawsuits. We found that the plaintiffs ha...