Johan Karlsson v. Ford Motor Company
Published: Feb. 24, 2004 | Result Date: Oct. 14, 2003 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: PC019980X Verdict – $45,450,000
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior San Fernando
Attorneys
Plaintiff
David R. Lira
(Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack)
Thomas V. Girardi
(Girardi & Keese)
Defendant
Facts
Plaintiff Johan Karlsson, a minor, was seated in the third row center seat of a 1996 Ford Windstar with a lap belt-only restraint. The other occupants of the vehicle were restrained with a three-point shoulder/lap belt system. The vehicle was traveling on Interstate 5 in Los Angeles County. A tractor-trailer carrying steel coils collided with another vehicle which caused the coils to become dislodged. The plaintiff's vehicle collided with one of the coils at 55 mph. The plaintiff was severely injured. The plaintiff sued defendant Ford Motor Company.
Settlement Discussions
The defendant offered $7.5 million on the sixth day of jury deliberations.
Injuries
Severed spinal cord at L1-2, paraplegia, skull fracture, perforation and loss of duodenum, right nephrectomy, C2-3 neck fractures, brachioplexus injury to right upper extremity, partial loss of pancreas and loss of spleen.
Result
The jury awarded plaintiff $45,450,000: $10,450,000 economic, $20,00,000 non-economic, and $15,00,000 punitive. Liability was allocated 40 percent to defendant and 60 percent to others.
Other Information
The defendant was sanctioned for abuses during discovery. It had initially denied the existence of testing comparing lap belt-only systems with three-point shoulder and lap belt systems. The trial court ruled plaintiff was entitled to the following appellate court approved sanctions: 1) Ford is not allowed to present any evidence that it warned the plaintiff that the center rear two-point seat belt was or was not a dangerous condition; 2) The plaintiff is entitled to a jury instruction that the center seat belt did not provide adequate protection and Ford failed to warn the plaintiff of this dangerous condition; 3) Ford is not allowed to provide evidence that its management was unaware of this failure to warn; 4) The plaintiff is entitled to a jury instruction that the court found Ford attempted to conceal evidence in order to prevent it being used at trial; 5) Ford may not provide evidence that its management was not aware that a three-point belt system was technically feasible for the rear center seat in a 1996 Windstar; 6) Ford may not object to any evidence obtained by plaintiff from the Rear Belt Reading Room and the Passive Restraint Reading Room from being allowed into evidence; 7) Ford is not allowed to provide evidence that its management was not aware of such documentation.
Deliberation
seven days
Length
23 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390