This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Torts
Product Liability
Design Defects

De'Wayne Cory, an incompetent by and through his conservator Betty L. Cory v. Ford Motor Company, Corrinea Cory, et al.

Published: Nov. 12, 2005 | Result Date: Jun. 21, 2005 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC275178 Verdict –  $22,298,300

Judge

Michael A. Smith

Court

San Bernardino Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Michael J. Piuze


Defendant

Frank P. Kelly III
(Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP)

Scott S. Blackstone
(Law Offices of John A. Hauser)

Daniel S. Rodman
(Snell & Wilmer LLP)


Experts

Plaintiff

Janice Wexler
(technical)

Anthony Sances Jr.
(technical)

Ted M. Kobayashi
(technical)

Joel S. Rosen
(medical)

Donald Friedman
(technical)

Jan Roughan R.N.
(medical)

Peter Formuzis Ph.D.
(technical)

Defendant

Larry F. Ragan
(technical)

David J. Weiner M.B.A., AM
(technical)

Debora R. Marth
(technical)

Edward L. Workman
(technical)

Keith Friedman
(technical)

Andrew E. Levitt
(technical)

Thomas L. Hedge Jr., M.D.
(medical)

Robert L. Piziali
(technical)

Facts

Plaintiff De'Wayne Cory, 30, was riding in the front passenger seat of a 1985 Ford LTD. Cory was 6'5" tall and had a pre-accident IQ of 43. His sister, defendant Corrinea Cory was operating the vehicle. On Sept. 15, 2002, the Corys were driving on Interstate 5 when Corrinea fell asleep at the wheel in the City of Weed. She was driving at about 70 miles per hour, the speed limit, when she drifted into the center median. Corrinea woke up and overcorrected to the right, which caused her LTD to slide across two lanes of traffic onto the paved shoulder and off the road. Her LTD rolled over once and landed upright. The plaintiff sustained spinal cord injuries, rendering him an incomplete quadriplegic.
The plaintiff sued Ford Motor Co. for products liability and his sister for negligence. His sister filed a cross-claim against Ford. Ford's motion for nonsuit as to the plaintiff's cause of action for negligence was granted, leaving only a strict products liability claim.

Contentions

The plaintiff and his sister contended that the LTD's roof was defective because it crushed inward onto the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that since 1970, Ford knew that it could equip its vehicles with stronger steel-reinforced roofs for only an additional cost of $9 to $12 per vehicle, but chose not to do so.
The LTD was not properly preserved and thus there was substantial dispute over how much the roof crushed in the rollover. Experts from each party attempted to reconstruct the roof crush using different techniques, resulting in significantly different opinions on how much roof crush had actually occurred.
DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR CO.'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant denied that its vehicle was defectively designed. It argued that the roof exceeded government standards. It further claimed that the roof was comparable to other similar vehicles manufactured in the mid-1980s. The defendant also argued that the roof was not substantially crushed in the accident and presented photographic analysis of the pictures taken of the crushed roof before it was towed. Moreover, the defendant argued that the $9 to $12 roof-reinforcement cost would not have prevented the plaintiff's injury especially since he was 6'5" tall. It argued that the plaintiff's injury was not caused by any alleged design defect, but rather, his injuries were caused when the plaintiff hit the roof when the car rolled over, which was due to his sister's negligent driving.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff demanded $3.5 million against defendant Ford. Ford offered $350,000 (C.C.P. Section 998). Prior to the involvement of defendant Cory's counsel (Callahan, McCune & Willis) in this case, the plaintiff demanded $100,000 (policy limit) against defendant Corrinea Cory, who did not accept the demand until after it had expired.

Specials in Evidence

$359,436.91 (stipulated cost and amount billed); Medi-Cal and Medicare paid $146,156.12 of this amount

Damages

Plaintiff asked the jury not to discount future medical care regardless of the testimony provided by its economist who testified that the present value of future medical care is $9.2 million. Plaintiff disagreed with the discount rate his economist used and argued that the interest rates would not go up faster than the increase in the costs of medical services. Further, the parties stipulated to the amount of plaintiff's past medical expenses. The billed amount of expenses was $359,436.91, but Medi-Cal and Medicare paid only $146,156.12.

Injuries

The plaintiff suffered spinal injuries, rendering him an incomplete paraplegic, which requires that he receive 24-hour attendant care.

Result

The jury returned a $22,298,326 verdict against defendant Corrinea Cory. The jury returned a defense verdict for Ford. The plaintiff is pursuing an excess verdict case against defendant Corrinea Cory's insurer.

Other Information

There was substantial dispute over how much the roof crushed in the rollover, which in turn resulted in the experts on each side to reach significantly different opinions about how much roof crush had actually occured.

Deliberation

one week

Poll

9-3

Length

nine weeks


#107748

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390