Products Liability Products Liability
Extensive Burns; Loss Of Arm And Leg; Broken Bones
$26,470,402 Verdict
Type of Action: Products liability
Type of Injuries: Burns over 65 percent of the body leading to amputation of right arm and right leg; fractured pelvis and jaw
Court/Case Number/Date: Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore City/95264025 CL202371/Nov. 13, 1996
Caption: Wasilik v. Rehert and Ford Motor Company
ADR Attempts: None
Judge, Jury or ADR: Jury
Name of Judge: Clifton J. Gordy Jr.
Special Damages Claimed: $1,395,912.79 past medical expense; $861,299.46 future medical expense; $47,639 past lost wages; $1,630,300.79 present value of lost future after-tax earnings; $7,535,250.39 future home attendant care
Verdict or Settlement: Jury verdict for $26,470,402.43
Allocation of Fault: Not submitted
Last Offer: Not disclosed
Last Demand: Not disclosed
Attorneys for Plaintiff: Robert L. Langdon and Bradley D. Kuhlman, Lexington; Deborah L. Potter, Annapolis, Md.
Insurance Carriers: Allstate (for other driver); none (for Ford Motor Co.)
Plaintiff's Experts: William Greenlees, San Antonio (accident reconstruction); Jerry Wallingford, San Antonio (vehicle design); Dr. Edward Cox, Dallas (metallurgy); Ronald Elwell, Phoenix (fire cause and origin); Dr. Marion Jordan, Washington, D.C. (treating surgeon); Dr. Harold Goldstein, Gloucester, Mass. (life care planner and medical economist)
Defendant's Experts: Gen. Jerry Curry, Washington, D.C. (former NHTSA administrator); Ralph Newell, Gainesville, Ga. (fire cause and origin); Dr. James Benedict, San Antonio (biomechanics); Larry Ragan, Detroit (vehicle design); Dr. Jack Lytton, Summerland Key, Fla. (metallurgy); Stephen Shedlin, Silver Spring, Md. (life care planner); Dr. Louis Maccini, Baltimore (economist)
Facts of the Case: A 24-year-old man was severely burned when his 1987 Ford pickup caught fire immediately after a head-on collision with a car near Baltimore, Md. He sued Ford, claiming he was trapped in the pickup because of two design defects and two manufacturing defects in the pickup. He also sued the driver of the other vehicle.
The plaintiff suffered only a broken jaw and broken pelvis in the collision itself; but because he could not remove his seat belt, he suffered massive burns in the fire which followed. Flames leaped 20 feet into the air at times and the smoke could be seen up to eight or 12 miles away. The fire was temporarily extinguished twice but reignited both times, before bystanders could cut the seat belt and remove plaintiff from the pickup.
Plaintiff contended that defective frame rivets and spot welds in the bed of the pickup broke during the impact and as a result he was thrust forward, applying continuous pressure against the seat belt. He said this caused his seat belt to lock up, and he was trapped in his burning vehicle. He said Ford's design was defective.
Plaintiff's pickup had an antisiphoning device on the gas supply line near the front of the vehicle, but none in the gas tank at the rear. Plaintiff claimed this allowed gas to drain from the gas tank to the passenger compartment, feeding the fire. He claimed Ford could have installed one of the devices in the gas tank at a cost of one dollar or less and said Ford had used them on some other vehicles since 1985.
Ford contended the fire was caused by the ignition of transmission fluid, power steering fluid or brake fluid, instead of by gasoline as plaintiff claimed. It also claimed it utilized advanced safety features in the design of its fuel system and emphasized that it complied with federal standards governing fuel system integrity.
The other driver admitted negligence, but contended he was only liable for the plaintiff's orthopedic injuries, and not for the burn injuries, which resulted from Ford's defective design.
The trial judge dismissed plaintiff's claim for punitive damages. The jury returned special verdicts for the plaintiff on the fuel system defect and on the manufacturing defects and for Ford on the claimed seat belt defects.
The jury assessed plaintiff's economic damages at $11,470,402 and his noneconomic damages at $15,000,000. However, Maryland law imposes a $500,000 cap on noneconomic damages.
Post-trial motions by both sides are pending. Ford seeks JNOV, a new trial or remittitur. Plaintiff argues the cap on noneconomic damages should not be imposed, and challenges the dismissal of his punitive damages claim.
© Copyright 1996 Lawyers Weekly Inc., All Rights Reserved.
