2006 News Releases

Jury Returns Unanimous Verdict for Ford Motor Company

After just over three hours of deliberation, a federal jury in Albuquerque, New Mexico, returned a unanimous verdict for Ford Motor Company in the wrongful death case brought by Edna Moreland, individually and as personal representative of Harold Moreland, Sr. The case was tried by Kevin Schiferl and Todd Croftchik of Locke Reynolds LLP (Indianapolis, IN) and Jeff Croasdell and Christopher Lee Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, PA (Albuquerque, NM). Plaintiff was represented by Brian Chase and Jerry Gans of Bisnar & Chase LLP (Newport Beach, CA) and David Jaramillo of The Gaddy Law Firm (Albuquerque, NM).

On March 23, 2003, at 4:30 A.M., the decedent, Harold Moreland Sr., 62, was driving his 1993 Ford Aerostar minivan on Interstate 10 in southern New Mexico. The decedent's sons, Harold Moreland Jr., 34, and Anthony Moreland, 36, were passengers. All three passengers were Ohio resident and were traveling from Phoenix, AZ to New Iberia, LA to visit family. For unknown reasons, the decedent drifted into the median, overcorrected, and lost control of the van. The Aerostar rolled 3 ½-4 ½ times and the decedent, who Plaintiff claims was initially belted, was ejected and died four hours later. The autopsy report concluded that the decedent died of natural causes -- an acute coronary artery thrombosis (a blood clot in the heart.)

Plaintiff alleged a defect in the restraint system of decedent's 1993 Ford Aerostar minivan. Specifically, she alleged that the RCF 67 style seatbelt buckle incorporated into this vehicle is prone to a condition called "false latch" and that condition manifested itself in this particular accident, causing Mr. Moreland's unfortunate death. Although experts often times draw a distinction, false latch is also frequently referred to as "partial engagement" and defines a condition where the seatbelt's tongue (attached to the webbing) is inserted into the buckle but is not completely engaged or secured. Therefore, the occupant believes he is fully restrained by the seatbelt system but in fact he is not. Ford contended that there were no defects in the Aerostar's seatbelt system and that the design of the seatbelt system, along with the physical evidence conclusively proved that system is not susceptible to false latch and that the decedent never attempted to fasten his seatbelt in the first place.

Plaintiff's defect claim rested on the shoulders of Steven Meyer, P.E. Mr. Meyer is a professional engineer who reconstructed this particular accident and opined on the false latch defect condition. Mr. Meyer's reconstruction was largely on par with Ford's, i.e. the vehicle departed the left side of the roadway at a shallow angle going between 65-70 miles per hour, the decedent overcorrected with a hard right steer input while in the dirt median and, the vehicle rotated (yawed) in a clockwise direction and began to roll over while traveling approximately 50 miles per hour. The most significant discrepancy in accident reconstructions involved the total number of rolls and the corresponding angular roll velocities. Meyer testified that the Aerostar rolled 3 1/2 times during the 200 foot roll distance; Ford's accident reconstructionist, Karl Stopschinski, testified that the Aerostar rolled 4 1/2 times in the same distance. The importance of the additional roll is best explained through the vehicle's roll rate. Generally speaking, more rolls in the same distance equates to a faster average roll rate which, in turn, equates to higher centrifugal forces on the occupants.

Meyer opined that the RCF 67 style side release seatbelt buckle is susceptible to "false latching" because the buckle lacks a spring-loaded tongue eject feature, which will forcibly spit out a tongue unless it is firmly and positively latched. That spring-loaded tongue eject feature was Plaintiff's feasible alternative design. The feasibility of that particular design went uncontested as it was already being used in 1993 by a number of manufacturers, including Ford. Meyer's "proof" that decedent was belted in a false latch condition was based upon two pieces of evidence. The first was Anthony Moreland's testimony that he assisted his father with putting his seatbelt on and saw his father insert the latch plate into the buckle. Ford, however, brought to Mr. Meyer's attention the fact that Anthony Moreland also testified that he pulled on his father's seatbelt it to ensure that it was fastened - a fact that Meyer was forced to admit would be inconsistent with a false latch claim. The other evidence Meyer relied upon was the various markings on the seatbelt webbing, driver's door trim panel, and door frame area that he claimed were consistent with belt use in this accident. Specifically, Meyer claimed that the seatbelt retractor created two marks on the webbing that could only have been created if the belt had initially been worn and that there were marks on the door trim panel and door frame area that were created by the belt as it was carried out the window with the decedent during the ejection process.

Ford's seatbelt expert, Jeffrey Pearson, countered Mr. Meyer with the undisputed testimony that over 500,000,000 RCF 67 style buckles were installed in production automobiles and the design has never been recalled. Additionally, Mr. Pearson testified that this particular design, and the specific buckle at issue in decedent's Aerostar complied with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards promulgated by the federal government, including Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 209 which contains a specific test for partial engagement. Most importantly, Mr. Pearson conducted testing on the buckle at issue and on an exemplar RCF 67 style buckle. The results of that testing showed conclusively that a properly functioning RCF 67 style buckle (such as decedent's) cannot be placed in a false latch condition for any significant period of time. Mr. Pearson's testing showed that it takes a concerted effort to place the buckle in a false latch condition in the first place as opposed to being able to do it accidentally. Mr. Pearson's testing also demonstrated that once you successfully place the buckle in the tenuous false latch position, the buckle will retract with only the slightest movement of the occupant. The practical effect of Mr. Pearson's testing and corresponding testimony was to completely refute Plaintiff's theory that decedent could put his buckle in a false latch condition and proceed to drive for 15 to 20 miles without the buckle ever giving him notification that it was, in fact, unlatched. Plaintiff's expert, Mr. Meyer had done no testing to demonstrate that such a theory was possible, much less probable to any degree of engineering certainty.

The physical evidence also supported Ford's contention of no belt usage. Plaintiff claimed that a phantom driver had struck the Aerostar from the rear, causing this accident. To rule out such a theory, Plaintiff's insurance company had retained an independent accident reconstructionist to inspect the scene of the accident and the vehicle. That independent witness took numerous photographs of the scene and vehicle. Ford called that witness to testify and he shared with the jury his opinion that there was no such phantom contact with the Aerostar and, more importantly, that his vehicle inspection revealed that the decedent's belt appeared "pristine" and new, "as if it had never been used." That testimony was likely crucial to the jury's determination that this seatbelt system was not defective and that decedent had never attempted to latch his seatbelt in the first place, as opposed to any purported false latch possibility.

Admittedly, the biomechanical issues of decedent's accident related injuries were relatively insignificant. Plaintiff's biomechanical expert, Dr. Anthony Sances, testified that the decedent was ejected during the first quarter to half roll; that the ejection caused his dislocated femur; and that the decedent would not have suffered any significant injuries had the seatbelt buckle performed properly. Ford's biomechanical expert, Dr. Robert Piziali disagreed on the timing of the ejection but otherwise agreed. Dr. Piziali also testified regarding the peculiar absence of injuries to Mr. Moreland. Dr. Piziali's testified that had Mr. Moreland's belt been falsely latched, he would have become entangled in the seatbelt during the ejection process and we would see evidence of those "entanglement" injuries on the decedent's body. There were no such injuries noted in the medical records or in the autopsy report. The absence of those entanglement injuries was further evidence that the decedent had never attempted to use his seatbelt system, as opposed to the seatbelt being falsely latched.

The issue of causation was hotly contested. Plaintiff's medical expert, Dr. Kenneth A. Williams testified that the decedent died from hypovolemic shock caused, in large part, by the internal bleeding associated with the decedent's accident-related dislocated and displaced femur. Ford did not call any retained medical experts to testify but instead relied upon the testimony of Dr. Corinne Stern, the board-certified forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy of the decedent. Dr. Stern testified Mr. Moreland died of a coronary artery thrombosis unrelated to any of his accident related injuries. Both conditions produce similar symptoms, i.e. initial fluctuations in the heart rate with pronounced bradycardia near death and a corresponding drop in blood pressure due to an insufficient supply of blood to the heart.

The jury was comprised of eight jurors, two of whom were alternates. The case was presided over by the Honorable Magistrate Judge W. Daniel Schneider.

Contact:

Locke Reynolds LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana
317-237-3800

Fort Wayne, Indiana
260-497-6000
www.locke.com

Locke Reynolds LLP. Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Disclaimer & Privacy Notice