A California state appeals court has affirmed a $30 million verdict against Ford Motor Co. in a seat-belt-defect case, rejecting the automaker’s contention that the trial judge should not have barred certain issues and evidence.
The panel said evidence- and issue-preclusion sanctions against Ford for discovery violations were properly applied in jury instructions, evidentiary rulings and the plaintiff’s arguments.
According to the trial record, Johan Karlsson, then 5, suffered a broken spine and was rendered paraplegic in 1996 when the 1996 Ford Windstar minivan in which he was riding struck a 15-ton steel coil that fell off the back of a tractor-trailer onto an interstate highway.
Johan’s mother, uncle and four siblings were also in the van.
The Karlssons sued the truck driver and his employer, TransContinental Transport, which cross-complained against Ford, alleging the Windstar’s defective design contributed to Johan’s injuries. The Karlssons eventually added Ford as a defendant, alleging claims of design defect and failure to warn against the auto manufacturer.
The van had lap belts and shoulder harnesses for all seats but the third row center, where Johan was riding. At that position, there was only a lap belt.
Johan’s spinal injuries were consistent with having jackknifed over at the waist, the plaintiffs claimed, arguing that had he been wearing a three-point restraint, his injuries would have been far less severe.
The trucking company settled with the Karlssons for $10 million.
Before trial in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the judge ruled that Ford could not offer evidence on warnings and the technical feasibility of a safer, alternative seat belt design, citing the automaker’s failure to timely provide answers to discovery requests.
The jury awarded Johan nearly $10.5 million in economic damages, $20 million for pain and suffering, and $15 million in punitive damages. The parties agreed to reduce the total damages to $30.3 million, factoring in the comparative fault and settlement of TCT.
Affirming, the state’s 2d District Court of Appeal said the sanctions excluding Ford’s evidence were, for the most part, properly applied and that any errors by the judge were harmless.