ILNews

COA reverses judgment for Ford in liability suit

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment today in favor of Ford Motor Co. in a products liability lawsuit, but the judges disagreed as to whether the manufacturer breached its duty to warn of the dangers of children riding in the front seat with airbags turned on.

In Peter and Lori Cook, as parents and next best friend of Lindsey Jo Cook, minor v. Ford Motor Co., No. 49A02-0802-CV-130, the Cooks sued Ford after their 8-year-old daughter, Lindsey, suffered severe head trauma when the front passenger seat airbag deployed during a minor accident. Lindsey had removed her seatbelt prior to the accident.

The Cooks claimed her injuries were caused in part by Ford's defective instruction and warnings with respect to the front passenger seat airbag and the airbag deactivation switch. Peter and Lori Cook admitted to not reading the entire owner's manual or the airbag warning on the front seat visor regarding airbags. Based on what they did read, they believed airbags should only be turned off in the front seat when a child is riding in a rear-facing safety seat.

The appellate court ruled that 49 C.F.R. Section 571.208 - Standard 208 - of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, doesn't preempt the Cooks' failure to warn claim. The Cooks argued waiver for the purposes of the appeal and wanted the Court of Appeals to prohibit Ford from raising S4.5.4.4 of the Safety Act on remand. That section explains what information a vehicle owner's manual shall provide regarding the airbag cutoff device.

The judges decided that Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S. Ct. 1187 (2009), should control the instant case. It also held that S4.5.4.4 provides a floor for the warnings that are to be included in an owner's manual with respect to airbag safety and use of the cutoff device, but it isn't a ceiling. The points addressed in that section must be included in the owner's manual, but the specific language isn't mandated and additional points aren't foreclosed, wrote Judge Margret Robb.

The appellate judges disagreed on the Cooks' claim for breach of duty to warn on the dangers associated with the truck's airbags. Judges Robb and Terry Crone couldn't say whether the instructions were adequate as a matter of law and questioned whether a reasonable person would have understood based on Ford's instructions that an injury could occur under the circumstances of this case. The majority also reversed summary judgment regarding proximate cause.

"Whether the backseat instruction, in conjunction with the airbag instruction, is adequate to warn of the dangers to children of airbag deployment and whether the Cooks' failure to follow the backseat instruction was a reasonably foreseeable intervening cause is, again, a question of fact properly reserved for the jury," wrote Judge Robb.

Judge Elaine Brown dissented because she believed the Cooks failed to comply with Ford's adequate warning to put children in the backseat of a car and to always wear their safety belts. There's no dispute the truck's manual contained warnings about those dangers and that it was possible for the parents to have Lindsey sit in the backseat at the time the accident occurred, she wrote.

The Court of Appeals also unanimously affirmed the denial of Ford's motion for fees and costs incurred during the first trial of this cause. The case is remanded for further proceedings.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT