Facts

In January 2014, plaintiff Derek Rhodehouse was a passenger in a Ford model F-350 that crashed and rolled over after hitting a patch of ice. Rhodehouse brought suit against Ford Motor Co. in relation to injuries sustained during the motor vehicle incident.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Rhodehouse claimed that Ford was liable for injuries sustained under theories of negligence and strict liability, based on the F-350's defective design. Rhodehouse claimed that the F-350's roof was defectively designed, allowing for the roof to cave into the passenger side. He also claimed that the F-350's handling and steering design created a tendency for rolling over.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Ford alleged that Rhodehouse presented insufficient evidence to satisfy the Risk-Benefit test for strict liability claims. Ford argued that no feasible and alternative designs to the defects were presented. Ford further argued that there was insufficient evidence to show the F-350's design was a substantial factor in the vehicle crash.

Injuries

Plaintiff suffered neck and back injuries.

Result

The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. All counts were dismissed. The court reasoned that when an underlying products liability claim is the same as a negligence claim, the analysis into causation can be done at the same time. Because the court granted summary judgment in favor of Ford for the underlying strict liability claim, the same finding was applied to the negligence claim.

Other Information

According to plaintiff, plaintiff's retained expert was ill and his deposition testimony reflected his incomplete testimony. When his illness was learned, plaintiff moved the court to allow him to substitute a new expert. Ford Motor would not agree. The court denied plaintiff's motion to substitute a new expert. The court would not allow the testimony of another expert in opposition to the MSJ. As a result, Ford won the motion. An appeal has been filed.