   |
||||||||||
 |
|
 |
2007 News Releases Jury Returns Unanimous Verdict for Ford Motor Company INDIANAPOLIS, Febuary 2007 Bourke v. Ford File No. 7400-110 On January 19, 2007, a federal jury in Hammond, Indiana, returned a unanimous verdict for Ford Motor Company in a wrongful death product liability action, finding that a 2000 Ford Explorer was not defective or unreasonably dangerous. The action was brought by Anna Bourke, as personal representative of The Estate of her late husband, Richard Bourke. ACCIDENT FACTS: Richard Bourke, 20, was driving his 2000 Ford Explorer on a toll road in northern Indiana during the early morning hours of August 22, 2001. Mr. Bourke and his wife had driven through the night on their return to northwestern Indiana from a weekend trip to Washington, D.C. At the time of the accident, Anna Bourke was the front-seat passenger. Mr. Bourke fell asleep, causing his vehicle to drift off the roadway while traveling approximately 55-60 miles per hour. Mr. Bourke thereafter became alert and input a steering maneuver to the right, causing the vehicle to re-enter the roadway. Mr. Bourke then overcorrected once again, steering the vehicle to the left. Mr. Bourke lost control of the vehicle and re-entered the median. The vehicle rolled one and one-half times and Mr. Bourke was ejected. Mr. Bourke died nearly instantly. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS: At the time of trial plaintiff asserted only a handling and stability claim. (Plaintiff strategically dismissed her glazing claims in advance of trial as such claims would have permitted Ford to introduce evidence under Indiana law that Mr. Bourke was unbelted at the time of the accident and was ejected from the vehicle.) Plaintiff argued that the Explorer was defectively designed in that it lacked adequate rollover resistance and should have been equipped with an Electronic Stability Control ("ESC") system. Plaintiff relied on the testimony of Micky Gilbert, P.E., to prove her claims. Mr. Gilbert reconstructed the subject accident and opined that the vehicle was defective. Mr. Gilbert's accident reconstruction mirrored the investigating officer's reconstruction and that of Ford's expert, Gary Cooper, with the exception of the point in the accident sequence that the vehicle “tripped” i.e. when the vehicle was committed to rolling over. Mr. Gilbert opined that the accident was an on-highway, untripped rollover. Contrarily, the investigating officer and Mr. Cooper opined that the vehicle was not committed to rollover until it entered the sloped, grassy median sideways after the second steering input. Plaintiff theorized that no vehicle should rollover under any steering maneuver if the vehicle is on flat dry pavement. Mr. Gilbert opined that Ford inadequately tested the Explorer's rollover resistance. Mr. Gilbert criticized Ford for not adopting the double steer maneuver test he created, as passage of his test would assure the Explorer would not rollover untripped under any circumstances. Mr. Gilbert likewise opined the Explorer had an unacceptable static stability factor and that Ford could have made the vehicle more stable by adding two-inch wheel spacers. Mr. Gilbert relied upon design, development and testing data pertaining to all pre-2000 Explorer models (UN 46, UN 105, UN150) to support his position that Ford never bothered to change the design of the Explorer even though it knew the Explorer could rollover under certain steering maneuvers. Gilbert further opined that the vehicle should have had ESC. Specifically, the claim was that Ford could have incorporated ESC into the Explorer instead of the Lincoln LS as Ford's introductory model for such technology and that Ford's ESC technology was behind that of the rest of the automotive world. Interestingly, on cross-examination Mr. Gilbert admitted the vehicle was not defective because it did not have ESC. Still, however, plaintiff pursued this theory. FORD'S DEFENSES Ford countered Mr. Gilbert's testimony with the testimony of outside expert, Don Tandy, and in-house engineer, Todd Brown. Mr. Tandy testified as to Ford's extensive and comprehensive handling and stability test procedures, and those of other manufacturers. Mr. Tandy noted that Mr. Gilbert's proposed test procedure had never been adopted by any governmental agency or any automotive manufacturer, and had never been proven reliable. Mr. Tandy further testified that the Explorer's track width, dimensions and center of gravity was a reasonable design. With respect to the claim regarding the ESC, Mr. Tandy opined that a vehicle with ESC is not accident-proof and can still rollover. The testimony of Todd Brown, a current Ford employee, was limited to his role designing, developing and testing ESC. Mr. Brown explained the complexities of the design of ESC and why Ford could not implement ESC into the 2000 Ford Explorer. VERDICT: After less than 40 minutes of deliberation, the Northern Indiana Federal Court jury returned a unanimous defense verdict for Ford Motor Company. Case Name: Anna Bourke, as personal representative of the Estate of Richard Bourke vs. Ford Motor Company. Case No.: 2:03-CV-136 RL (civil action) Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division. Attorneys for Bourke: Michael D. Weisman of Boston, Massachusetts, and Don Schlyer of Merrillville, Indiana. Attorneys for Ford: James M. Campbell and David M. Rogers of Campbell, Campbell Edwards & Conroy of Boston, Massachusetts, and Kevin C. Schiferl and Karen M. R. Weber of Locke Reynolds LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana.
|
Contact: Locke Reynolds LLP Fort Wayne, Indiana
|
||||||||
 |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
Locke Reynolds LLP. Copyright 2008. All rights reserved. |
||||||||||