Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Ford Loses $3.95 Million Jury Verdict in Rollover Suit
By Margaret Cronin Fisk
Oct. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Ford Motor Co., the second-largest
U.S. automaker, should pay $3.25 million to the family of a woman
killed when the Explorer sport utility vehicle she was driving
flipped over in an accident, a South Carolina jury found.
Erika Hayward, 26, was ejected from the vehicle in the April
2000 accident. The jury awarded her family and three passengers
$3.95 million in actual damages Oct. 13, finding the Explorer
defective. Jurors last night couldn't reach a verdict on punitive
damages, and U.S. District Judge Patrick Michael Duffy declared a
mistrial on that issue.
The Hayward suit is one of several hundred facing Ford over
claims of defects after Explorer rollovers. Attorneys for the
Hayward family said the company knew the vehicle was prone to
rolling over and failed to warn or protect customers.
``As far back as 1989, Ford Motor Company knew that this
Explorer had rollover problems,'' Ed Bell, the Hayward family's
lawyer, told jurors in Charleston, South Carolina. ``Ford knew of
potentially fatal defects during the development and manufacture
of this vehicle and chose not to remedy them.''
Hayward's family said she lost control of the SUV because it
is inherently unstable. They also claimed defects in the
Explorer's roof and window glass. The jury awarded $700,000 to
three passengers in the vehicle as well as the family.
Ford said it wasn't responsible for Hayward's death and will
ask for a mistrial on the entire verdict.
Ford's Position
``The jury's inability to reach a decision on the issue of
punitive damages is not surprising given the Explorer's solid
safety record and the fact that Ford has won an overwhelming
majority of its Explorer trials.'' Ford spokeswoman Kathleen
Vokes said in an e-mailed message. ``The jury's indecision casts
doubt on the entire result.''
The trial judge will determine whether the entire case or
just the punitive damages portion will be retried, said Bell, of
the James Edward Bell III Law Offices in Georgetown, South
Carolina.
Hayward was driving the rented 2000 Explorer on Interstate
95 in South Carolina when she lost control of the vehicle and it
flipped over, Bell said in the trial. The roof crumpled; the side
window shattered; and Hayward flew out of the broken window, he
said.
The family's lawyers argued that the Explorer roof was too
weak to withstand a rollover and the side window should have had
laminated instead of tempered glass.
Laminated Glass
Laminated glass, in which plastic is sandwiched between
layers of glass, would have kept her in the vehicle, Bell told
jurors. He said Hayward was wearing her seat belt.
Ford wasn't responsible for the accident or the injuries,
Vokes said.
``This tragedy was caused by driver inattention, excessive
speed, and the occupants' failure to wear the seat belts,'' she
said by e-mail. Laminated glass wouldn't have protected Hayward,
she said.
``Plaintiffs' alternative design did not exist on a single
vehicle in 2000 and, in this accident, would not have kept the
unbelted occupants inside the vehicle,'' Vokes said. ``No other
SUV in 2000 would have performed any better in this accident.''
Attorneys for the Hayward family said Ford ignored warnings
from its own engineers that the Explorer needed design changes to
improve stability before it was first sold in 1990.
Insider's Testimony
In a videotaped deposition played to the Hayward jury, the
project manager for the first Explorers, Roger Simpson, said the
company didn't make some recommended design changes partly
because they would have delayed the launch of the Explorer and
postponed Ford's return on a $500 million investment.
In the trial, Bell said internal memos warned that the
vehicle could flip over if it used a larger tire than one
approved by the company's engineers. Ford's marketing department
pressured the company into using larger tires on Explorers
because they looked more ``rugged,'' Bell told jurors. The
Explorer Hayward was driving had the larger tire, he said.
Bell argued that Ford's failure to change the earlier
Explorers met the court's standard for punitive damages, which
requires clear and convincing evidence of intentional harm or
reckless disregard of a plaintiff's rights.
Ford attorney Alan Thomas said in the trial that Ford made
engineering decisions in good faith and didn't deserve
punishment. Documents and depositions used in the trial showed
there was a debate at Ford about engineering choices, not an
intent to ignore safety, he said.
`We Trust This Vehicle'
``We trust this vehicle with our children, our spouses,''
Thomas, of Huie Fernambucq & Stewart in Birmingham, Alabama, told
the jury yesterday.
The verdict is the fifth against Ford in an Explorer rollover
lawsuit. The company won the first 13 to go to trial before
losing a $369 million jury verdict in San Diego in June 2004. The
company has won several Explorer rollover cases this year,
including one last month in a West Virginia state court.
The reputation of the Explorer, the best-selling sport
utility vehicle, was hurt by a U.S. investigation into at least
271 highway deaths involving tread separation by Bridgestone
Corp.'s Firestone tires, mostly on Explorers. Ford settled
hundreds of suits over rollovers related to tire failures.
Ford has been sued several hundred times over Explorer
rollovers in cases that don't involve tire failures.
Ford shares fell 19 cents to $8.47 in New York Stock
Exchange composite trading. Dearborn, Michigan-based Ford is the
second-largest automaker in North America, behind General Motors
Corp.
The case is Hayward v. Ford Motor Co., 9-02-3878-23, U.S.
District Court, District of South Carolina (Charleston).
--Editor: Carter.
To contact the reporter on this story:
Margaret Cronin Fisk in Southfield, Michigan, at
(1) (248) 827-2947 or mcfisk@bloomberg.net .
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Patrick Oster at (212) 617-4088 or poster@bloomberg.net .
