ILNews

Justices order new trial to determine fault in Ford rollover suit

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has reversed the allocation of fault in a wrongful death action against Ford Motor Co. and other defendants, finding the evidence didn’t support allocating fault to the manufacturer of the seatbelt assembly and a nonparty. The high court was also faced with the challenge of allocating fault among the remaining parties.

In TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc., and Ford Motor Company v. Sally J. Moore, personal representative of the estate of Daniel A. Moore, deceased, No. 73S05-0909-CV-404, the Supreme Court was faced with appeals from defendants Ford, and TRW Vehicle Safety Systems challenging the jury verdict and adverse judgment, as well as from plaintiff Sally J. Moore, whose husband Daniel died after he was thrown from his Ford Explorer through the sunroof during a rollover after a tire failure. Moore was wearing his seatbelt at the time of the crash. Sally Moore claimed there was insufficient evidence to support apportioning a portion of fault to nonparty Goodyear Tire.

Sally Moore brought a wrongful death action, and the jury found total damages to be $25 million and allocated fault to Moore at 33 percent; Ford at 31 percent; nonparty Goodyear at 31 percent; and TRW at 5 percent. Judgments were entered against Ford for $7.75 million and against TRW for $1.25 million.

The four justices ruled against Ford in all of its claims on appeal, and ruled in favor on TRW’s appeal regarding the denial of its motion for judgment on the evidence. The plaintiff claimed TRW was liable for negligent design of the seatbelt assembly. The evidence shows that TRW made the seatbelt assembly in compliance with Ford’s design specifications, wrote Justice Brent Dickson. There is no evidence showing TRW failed to exercise reasonable care in designing the assembly, so the motion for judgment on the evidence should have been granted. The justices vacated the judgment and allocation of 5 percent fault to TRW.

They also ordered a reduction in damages awarded attributable to the Moores’ son’s projected damages for a life span of 37.1 years. The jury should have only considered the time between the age the son was when his father died until his 18th birthday, so the son’s portion of the total damages determination should have been reduced by 78 percent, wrote Justice Dickson. They ordered a new trial subject to remittitur, wherein Sally Moore may instead accept a determination of total damages, before allocation of comparative fault for a sum of nearly $16 million.

The justices also granted Sally Moore’s cross-appeal because there wasn’t enough evidence to support allocating fault to Goodyear. But then the justices were left with the task of reassigning fault percentages to the remaining parties – Ford and Moore – a process that isn’t dictated by statute or caselaw. Indiana Appellate Rule 66 provides a broad range of options, and the justices decided in the interest of justice to order a new trial to allocate fault. They remanded on the issues of comparative fault and the allocation between Ford and Moore. If the fault of Moore doesn’t exceed that of Ford, the resulting fault allocations shall be applied to the total damages determined in this case, wrote Justice Dickson.
 

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT