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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Living in South Bend, I travel to Michigan a lot. Virtually every gas station sells cold beer there. Many sell the hard stuff too. Doesn't seem to be a big deal there.

  2. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  3. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

ADVERTISEMENT