Facts

The plaintiff, a right rear seat passenger, suffered L1-2 spinal fractures and other injuries during a rollover involving a Ford Aerostar minivan. The plaintiff and five others were in the Aerostar on southbound I-15, returning to Los Angeles from Las Vegas, when the left rear tire delaminated and blew out. The Aerostar veered to the right off the roadway and rolled over multiple times. The left tire had been patched on two separate occasions prior to the accident and had more than 50,000 miles of service at the time of the accident.

Prior to trial, the plaintiff settled with Sears which had sold and installed two tires on the subject Aerostar. The plaintiffs also settled with the driver of the Aerostar. Ford's C.C.P. Section 998 offers were accepted by the five other occupants of the Aerostar prior to trial.

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff alleged design defect, manufacturing defect, and failure to warn. She claimed that the failure of a rear suspension component caused the Aerostar to swerve out of control and roll over and that the van's roof was defective and caused her injuries. Plaintiff presented evidence that the rear upper control arm, a rear suspension component of the subject Aerostar, broke from fatigue failure causing left rear tire blow out and loss of control. Plaintiff also presented evidence that plaintiff was properly seat belted and suffered her injuries, in part, from collapse of the Aerostar roof which plaintiff contended to be defective in design.

DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant introduced evidence of extensive safety testing on identical models of the Aerostar. The test results indicated that the vehicle was safe, and that the structure and design elements cited by plaintiff were not capable of the failure plaintiff alleged. The defendant also introduced evidence that plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt. Ford claimed that the rear suspension component broke due to forces in the rollover, not while the van was driving on the road. Finally, defendant contended that the improper repair of the vehicle's tire and the driver's negligence had caused the accident.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made a C.C.P. Section 998 demand for $2 million. Ford served a C.C.P. 998 offer of $200,000.

Damages

The plaintiff sought $18 million in damages, a significant portion of which was attributable to punitive damages on which the court ruled plaintiff had made a prima facie case.

Result

The jury returned a defense verdict.

Other Information

The plaintiff's motion for new trial has been denied. Ford was awarded $935,000 in costs from plaintiff. The trial began on July 18, 2006, and the jury did not begin deliberations until Dec. 15, 2006, and the verdict as rendered on Jan. 10, 2007. The case thus did not conclude until 82 days after the October 20 day the jury had originally been told by the trial judge. According to the plaintiff, the jury had been deadlocked at 7 to 5 in favor of plaintiff throughout deliberations and until the day of the verdict. On Jan. 10, 2007, the final morning of deliberations, Ford brought a motion for mistrial contending that juror misconduct had irreparably tainted the jury. Over the objections by plaintiff, the trial judge excluded a key plaintiff juror and brought the final remaining alternate juror on to the jury. A verdict for Ford was reached three hours later (12-1 and 11-1 on the causes of action). A motion for new trial was brought by plaintiff upon grounds of juror misconduct and errors in law at trial. According to the plaintiff, plaintiff's new trial motion included declarations from five jurors, including the jury foreperson, attesting that during deliberations one juror repeatedly made racist and biased comments about plaintiff; that the same juror influenced the jury with outside "facts;" that another juror pre-judged the case and refused to deliberate; and, that after first joining the jury on the final morning of deliberations the alternate juror used "facts" outside the evidence (his experience as a shade tree mechanic), on the pivotal issue of rear upper control arm design and function, as to improperly influence the verdict. Using these "facts" outside the evidence, the alternate juror changed a 7 to 5 jury vote for plaintiff on liability to 12-0 and 11 to 1 votes for Ford within three hours. Declarations by jurors disputed plaintiff's claims of misconduct, and the court denied plaintiff's motion for new trial.

Length

six months