Facts

On Jan. 4, 2004, plaintiff Norwood Jones III, 23, was driving his 1997 Acura 2.2 CL on the transition road from northbound I-605 to eastbound Interstate 10 in Los Angeles. He was wearing his seat belt. The vehicle was manufactured by defendant Honda of America Mfg. Inc., and was distributed by defendant American Honda Motor Co. Inc. The roadway was designed, constructed, and maintained by defendant State of California. There was a cautionary speed limit for the transition road of 40 mph.

According to the investigating CHP officer, Jones was driving approximately 65 mph on the transition road. For unknown reasons, the plaintiff lost control of the vehicle, which began to "fishtail" and veered off the left-hand side of the road. The vehicle struck a guardrail, tripped, and rolled over two times. The vehicle was traveling nearly 40 mph when it overturned and it rolled a total distance of approximately 100 feet. Jones sustained a spinal cord injury rendering him a quadriplegic.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
As to State of California, the plaintiff contended that the transition ramp constituted a dangerous condition on public property. The plaintiff claimed that there was inadequate signage to warn motorists of the curve to the roadway, that there was inadequate super-elevation, and that there was inadequate guardrailing.

As to Honda, the plaintiff contended that the roof of the 1997 Acura 2.2 CL was defectively designed; that the roof was not strong enough, "crushed inward" during the rollover, and caused his spinal injuries. The plaintiff's experts claimed that the injury could only have been caused by the "crushing roof" pressing his head into full flexion (i.e., chin to chest).

Evidence was presented at trial that established that Acura met the current strength to weight ratio required by the NHTSA, but according to plaintiff's counsel, Honda knew that the subject vehicle could not meet a two-sided strength test. Plaintiff claimed that Honda and all car manufacturers have opposed these safety standards for more than 30 years. Plaintiff alleged that Honda's experts used modified and "RIGGED" tests to obtain results to present to the jury, and the trial judge allowed evidence of testing performed after the expert depositions and did not allow plaintiff to further examine the new tests and demonstrative evidence.

Plaintiff's counsel further claims as follows:

The plaintiff had evidence of numerous similar accidents at the freeway interchange, but the trial judge decided that only accidents that resulted in rollovers were relevant. The trial judge decided speed was a factor and eliminated all evidence of other vehicles that lost control at this interchange. Significant evidence was not admitted because the trial judge "claimed to know" this freeway interchange and he was familiar with the reason there were accidents at the subject location.

The court also unilaterally granted design immunity (he did not allow the issue to go to jury). The court modified standard CACI instructions to preclude a finding of liability for a dangerous condition even though it was created by the state.

The court precluded plaintiff from reading deposition testimony from experts retained by the defense and withdrawn as experts "AFTER" their depositions.

Honda's counsel claimed plaintiff's experts damaged the car during the pendency of the case even though he admitted (outside the presence of the jury) that he knew it was not true.

Honda's counsel also used the "Golden Rule" argument in closing asking if they would let their children do certain things suggested by plaintiff's experts. Honda's counsel told the jury to consider what they would do if their children took action similar to described testimony in the case. This was a clear breach of protocol, but went unpunished in this trial.

Both the state's counsel and Honda's counsel made numerous references to collateral sources, including workers' compensation payments, and whether plaintiff paid anything toward his own medical care despite a court order precluding the mention of collateral source.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant State of California (Caltrans) denied that the roadway constituted a dangerous condition on public property. Caltrans introduced evidence that the signage, elevation, banking, and guardrailing complied with all applicable guidelines. Caltrans also contended that the accident and plaintiff's injuries were caused by his own negligent operation of the vehicle.

Honda contended that the vehicle was not defective in any respect and that roof deformation did not cause plaintiff's injury. Defense testing showed that neck injuries in rollovers occur when the vehicle and the occupant are upside-down, and the vehicle, roof and occupant all hit the ground at the same time. If the head, neck and torso are aligned when this happens, as was the case here, the occupant's downward-moving torso loads into and compresses the neck, causing injury before there is any significant roof deformation. The defense described this mechanism of injury as torso augmentation, explaining that it occurs when the occupant essentially dives into the ground. The injury does not occur by the roof crushing in or crushing down on the occupant. The same or equally severe neck injury would have occurred even if the roof did not deform at all.

As is true of most rollover roof crush cases, the primary issue in this case was neck injury mechanism. The plaintiff claimed the roof crushed in on the occupant causing the injury. Honda claimed that the injury was caused by torso augmentation when the roof and the head of the diving occupant hit the ground at the time the roof impacted the ground. The plaintiff was 6'7" feet tall. The plaintiff's experts admitted that plaintiff's head was against the inside of the vehicle's roof before the roof impacted the ground during the rollover.

Honda also presented evidence that the Acura 2.2 CL was well-designed with a structurally strong roof. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 216 sets forth the requirements for roof strength. The plaintiff claimed the 216 Standard was inadequate. Honda's position was that roof strength in excess of the applicable federal standard does not reduce the risk of neck injury in rollover crashes. In any event, test documents showed that the subject vehicle's roof exceeded the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 216 by a wide margin.

Honda also contended that the accident was caused by plaintiff's unsafe speed in driving the transition road.

In response to plaintiff counsel's contentions, Honda's counsel claims:

There was no evidence presented at trial that Honda knew the subject vehicle would not meet a "two-sided test" - a test advocated by plaintiff's expert but not required by the federal government. There was no evidence presented that Honda ever opposed any federal government safety standards. Honda's experts did not conduct any tests after expert discovery. Plaintiff's roof expert performed testing months after the close of expert discovery; that testing was permitted into evidence over Honda's objection.

Plaintiff attempted to read portions of the deposition of a biomechanical expert retained by State of California. However, the court ruled that the proffered deposition testimony was cumulative of testimony provided during trial by plaintiff's biomechanical expert.

Honda presented evidence that the vehicle was structurally damaged after the accident and that physical evidence inside the passenger compartment may have been compromised by the manner in which plaintiff's expert stored the vehicle. On cross-examination, plaintiff's roof expert acknowledged that the vehicle was not properly stored by his "sister company."

Honda's counsel did not make any "Golden Rule" statements in closing argument. Neither defendant made any references to plaintiff's receipt of past or future workers' compensation benefits. However, on direct examination, plaintiff's economist testified that her calculations were based on the assumption that plaintiff had received health benefits from his employer since the date of the accident. The economist further testified on direct examination that she believed it was "an appropriate assumption."

Settlement Discussions

According to plaintiff's counsel: The original demand as to both defendants was $20 million. According to defendant Honda's counsel: Plaintiff's last settlement demand was in excess of $20 million. According to counsel for the state: Plaintiff's initial demand from the state was $90 million (disputed by plaintiff's counsel). Plaintiff's final demand as to the state was $4 million. The defense offered nothing.

Specials in Evidence

$2,298,196 $161,000 $1,804,652 $8,637,464

Injuries

Quadriplegia at C6-7 level.

Result

Defense verdict as to plaintiff's product liability claim against Honda and plaintiff's dangerous condition claim against State of California.

Other Information

A motion for new trial will be filed. FILING DATE: Jan. 12, 2005.

Deliberation

two hours (per defense counsel); 3.5 hours (per plaintiff's counsel)

Poll

10-2 (design defect as to Honda), 10-2 (dangerous condition as to State of California)

Length

seven weeks