Jury awards $6.1M to brothers injured in Marion crash

March 24, 2017
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A judge this week certified what’s believed the largest-ever Grant County jury trial award of damages in a case stemming from a fatal car crash that happened almost eight years ago.

Judge Jeffrey D. Todd this week certified a jury’s $6.1 million verdict against the estate of Karen L. Roush and in favor of two brothers who were injured as teens in a car her vehicle struck.  

Taylor and Kolby O’Banion of Marion were at an intersection when a car driven by Roush crossed the center line at a high rate of speed, struck their car, left the road and struck a light pole before coming to a stop. Roush was killed in the crash.

Litigation combined in the case included a product-liability claim filed by Roush’s estate against Ford, alleging the accelerator stuck on her 2005 Mercury Monterey van that was involved in the crash.

A six-person jury assigned 100 percent of fault to Roush, though, awarding $3.1 million to Kolby O’Banion and $3 million to Taylor O’Banion. The jury also awarded costs to the O’Banions and Ford as prevailing parties.

Plaintiff’s attorney Todd Glickfield of Marion said the family had been “going through hell” as Roush’s insurer, Farm Bureau Insurance, refused to offer settlement outside a range of $200,000-$600,000. “In all honesty, it was an exercise in frustration,” he said.

Glickfield said the brothers, now 24 and 26, were left with permanent facial scarring and suffered numerous and lingering physical and psychological trauma as the family struggled to pay medical bills that exceeded $300,000 resulting from the crash.

Josef Musser of Spitzer Herriman Stephenson Holderead in Marion, who represented Farm Bureau, did not immediately respond to a message left Friday.

“They started on this odyssey to try to have Ford Motor Co. found at fault almost immediately after the accident,” Glickfield said. He said Roush had been covered by a policy with limits above $2 million. “I think they felt like they could stall this case out,” he said.

The jury, Glickfield said, “saw through the product liability claim and pretty much realized what happened to this family, and that’s why we got the number we got. … Is there bad faith by the insurance company? All those issues now have to be answered.”

He said he believes the jury sent a message that they didn’t believe the product liability claim.

He believes the jury soured after hearing from Farm Bureau’s expert witness, mechanical engineer David Zedonis, who testified about an alleged defect that caused the accelerator to stick. Ford countered with three expert witnesses who testified about testing they did to try to replicate the alleged defect, but it could not be recreated.

After Zedonis left the stand, Glickfield said he could sense the jury seething, and he believed jurors might award damages above the policy limits. Glickfield said at that point he offered to settle the case for $1.5 million, but the defense declined.

Ford had refused to offer settlement, Glickfield said, and instead sought to vindicate the safety of its vehicle.

“We fully proved our vehicle is a non-defective vehicle,” said Frost Brown Todd LLC attorney Kevin Schiferl, among the attorneys who represented Ford.

Ford issued a statement after the verdict. “This was an unfortunate accident and our sympathy continues to go out to both the O’Banion and Roush families,” the automaker said.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways:

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.