Trw Vehicle Safety Sys. Inc. v. Moore

• Citation: 936 N.E.2d 201
• Decision Date: 13 October 2010
• Docket Number: No. 73S05-0909-CV-404.,73S05-0909-CV-404.
• Parties: TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC., and Ford Motor Company, Appellants (Defendants below), v. Sally J. MOORE, Personal Representative of the Estate of Daniel A. Moore, Deceased, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

936 N.E.2d 201

TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC., and Ford Motor Company, Appellants (Defendants below),
v.
Sally J. MOORE, Personal Representative of the Estate of Daniel A. Moore, Deceased, Appellee (Plaintiff below).

No. 73S05-0909-CV-404.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Oct. 13, 2010.

936 N.E.2d 207

David W. Stone IV, Stone Law Office, Anderson, IN, Richard S. Eynon, David M. Brinley, Eynon Law Group, P.C., Columbus, IN, Richard L. Denney, Lydia Joann Barrett, Denney & Barrett, Norman, OK, Attorneys for Appellee.

Mary K. Reeder, Riley, Bennett & Egloff, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Damond R. Mace, Andrew R. Kruppa, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P., Cleveland, OH, Attorneys for Appellant, TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc.

Nelson D. Alexander, Eric A. Riegner, Maggie L. Smith, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant, Ford Motor Company.

Thomas C. Doehrman, Doehrman-Chamberlain, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Amicus Curiae, Indiana Trial Lawyers Ass'n.

On Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 73A05-0710-CV-552

DICKSON, Justice.

Daniel Moore died when, despite wearing his seatbelt, he was ejected through the sunroof of his Ford Explorer vehicle during a rollover that followed a tire failure as he was driving on Interstate 65 near Edinburgh, Indiana. He was survived by his wife and one minor son. His widow, as personal representative of his estate, brought this wrongful death action. At the conclusion of a fourteen-day trial, the jury found the total damages to be $25,000,000 and allocated fault as follows: decedent Daniel Moore, 33%; defendant Ford Motor Company ("Ford"), 31%; nonparty Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company ("Goodyear"), 31%; ¹ and defendant TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc. ("TRW"), 5%. Judgments were entered against Ford in the sum of $7,750,000 and against TRW in the sum of $1,250,000. Appeals were commenced by both defendants, and the plaintiff cross-appealed. Finding the evidence insufficient to support the jury's verdicts against Ford and TRW, the Court of Appeals

936 N.E.2d 208

reversed as to both defendants. Ford Motor Co. v. Moore, 905 N.E.2d 418 (Ind.Ct.App.2009). We granted transfer and now reverse the judgment as to TRW, reverse the allocation of fault to nonparty Goodyear, reverse the determination of total damages, and remand for retrial to (a) allocate 100% of the fault between the plaintiff and Ford, and (b) redetermine the total damages subject to fault allocation unless the plaintiff accepts remittitur as hereinafter specified.

In its appeal from the jury verdict and adverse judgment, Ford lists the following issues: (a) sufficiency of the evidence on the design defect claim; (b) the effect of a denial of a motion for directed verdict upon the rule favoring affirmance of a general verdict supported by any evidence; (c) the prohibition of medical causation testimony; and (d) the failure to grant a mistrial following an in-court demonstration by the plaintiff. TRW's appeal focuses on: (a) denial of its motion for judgment on the evidence; (b) exclusion of evidence; and (c) damages in excess of the plaintiff's demand, insufficiently supported, and resulting from improper closing argument. Ford's appellant's brief also "adopts and incorporates" without further argument substantially all of TRW's appellate arguments. The plaintiff's cross-appeal claims there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's apportionment of 31% fault to nonparty Goodyear.

1. Ford's Insufficient Evidence Claims

Ford seeks reversal and judgment in its favor on grounds of insufficient evidence. It asserts that the plaintiff's case against it was based on three theories of liability: (a) defective seatbelt system; (b) defective sunroof; and (c) defective design regarding the Ford Explorer's handling and stability characteristics. Ford argues that the evidence fails to prove at least one element of each of these theories. In response, the plaintiff argues that the evidence was sufficient to support the claims alleging defects as to the seatbelt and the sunroof.

In the appellate review of a claim of insufficient evidence in a civil case, we "affirm a verdict when, considering the probative evidence and reasonable inferences, a reasonable jury could have arrived at the same determination." Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp. v. Powell, 906 N.E.2d 823, 830 (Ind.2009). We neither weigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility but consider only the evidence and inferences most favorable to the judgment. Martin v. Roberts, 464 N.E.2d 896, 904 (Ind.1984); Beall v. Mooring Tax Asset Group, 813 N.E.2d 778, 781 (Ind.Ct.App.2004), trans. not sought. We will reverse only "if there is a lack of evidence or evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn on an essential element of the plaintiff's claim." Martin, 464 N.E.2d at 904.

As to the plaintiff's claim of negligent seatbelt system design, the parties agree that the plaintiff's decedent was ejected through the sunroof in the rollover when his seatbelt developed slack. Competing expert witnesses disputed the cause of the slack. Ford contends that the evidence was insufficient because it failed to establish the requisite standard of care and failed to prove that Ford's conduct fell below such standard. Ford argues that because automotive design is outside a layman's common experience, the plaintiff was required, and failed, to present competent expert testimony establishing the particular standard of care and the breach of such standard. Ford urges that the plaintiff should have presented evidence "concerning the methodology a reasonable manufacturer would employ when designing a seat belt system or selecting its component parts." Ford's Appellant's Br. at 29. Ford also adopts and incorporates

936 N.E.2d 209

TRW's arguments alleging insufficient evidence. To the extent that TRW's arguments extend to Ford, they are that the plaintiff failed to present evidence of the proper standard of care; to offer testing, data, studies, or other evidence to show a safer, more practicable product design; and to rebut evidence that its proposed alternative design itself presented safety concerns.

The Indiana Product Liability Act generally imposes strict liability for physical harm caused by a product in an unreasonably dangerous defective condition. Ind.Code § 34-20-2-1. For actions based on an alleged product design defect, however, the Act departs from strict liability and specifies a different standard of proof: "[T]he party making the claim must establish that the manufacturer or seller failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances in designing the product." Ind.Code § 34-20-2-2. Thus the statute itself prescribes the applicable standard of care. We decline to require proof of any additional or more particular standard of care in product liability actions alleging a design defect.²

Pointing to the testimony of Steven Meyer, a widely published mechanical engineer who has studied restraint systems in rollover accidents and testified for the plaintiff, Ford asserts that Meyer failed to provide any direct testimony that Ford's designers fell below the standard of care. This deficiency, Ford argues, establishes its claim of insufficient evidence as to the plaintiff's claim of defective design of the seatbelt system.

While the plaintiff was required to prove such breach of duty, the sufficiency of such proof is determined from the evidence itself and did not require an opinion witness's declaration thereof. Meyer testified that the 1997 Explorer's seatbelt system was defective because it "allows the belt to become unlocked during the rollover portion of a rollover." Tr. at 579. He explained that this could have been avoided if Ford had chosen an alternative retractor design, a "pretensioner," that Ford had used in other passenger vehicles, particularly in Europe. Tr. at 594-96. Acknowledging that Meyer testified that a different design was available and should have been chosen, Ford attacks Meyer's credibility and lack of personal experience in designing automotive components, and it argues in response that the availability of a safer alternative design should not suffice to prove negligence.

As directed by statute, the plaintiff was required to "establish that the manufacturer or seller failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances in designing the product." Ind.Code § 34-20-2-2. That Ford elected to equip its 1997 Ford Explorer with a seatbelt system without utilizing the pretensioner technology it used for Ford vehicles manufactured in Europe constitutes probative evidence as to the issue of Ford's use of reasonable care. For the purpose of appellate review for sufficiency, such evidence may support

936 N.E.2d 210

a reasonable inference of seatbelt system design negligence.

With respect to the claim of negligent sunroof design, Ford claims an absence of evidence that the sunroof was dislodged by "occupant forces pushing outward" rather than as a result of the "vehicle slamming into the ground during the first roll" before the ejection occurred. Ford's Appellant's Br. at 34. Ford also argues that, even if the sunroof was dislodged by occupant force, there was no evidence that this resulted from a structural failure.

Ford acknowledges that the plaintiff's decedent was ejected from the Explorer through the sunroof. Ford's Appellant's Br. at 7. According to the opinion testimony of Joseph L. Burton, M.D., had the decedent been retained inside the vehicle, "he should have survived this accident." Tr. at 714-15. Testimony from Stephen A. Batzer, Ph.D., P.E., provided evidence that the rollover tendency of Ford Explorers and other sport utility vehicles was well-known before the 1997 Explorer was built, that the sunroof glass detached in the course of this rollover accident and provided an opening in the roof when its brackets failed, and that the use of a stronger sunroof bracket design was technologically and economically feasible. Whether the roof...