Ford Seeks New Trial After $1.7 Billion Jury Verdict in Truck Rollover Lawsuit

In new court docket filings Monday, Ford mentioned it was unfairly precluded from offering proof that might have demonstrated the truck concerned within the deadly incident was protected and the roof construction was stronger than a lot of its friends.

The trial is over a 2014 crash that killed two members of the plaintiffs’ household. The household sued Ford, alleging that the truck’s roof design was defective and susceptible to break down throughout a rollover crash.

The automotive firm argued Monday {that a} state choose in 2018 successfully barred Ford from defending itself towards the plaintiffs’ claims that the truck’s roof design was faulty, in response to the newest filings.

Ford additionally mentioned within the filings that it wasn’t capable of sufficiently present at trial different elements at play that might have contributed to the fatalities, together with its competition that the occupants weren’t correctly sporting their seat belts.

“Ford didn’t get to place its case on,” mentioned Theodore Boutrous, an lawyer for the auto maker. “It was preventing with two arms behind its again.” The decision is the best ever awarded in Georgia historical past, attorneys within the case mentioned.

Ford confirmed its seventh-generation Mustang sports activities automotive on the Detroit auto present on Wednesday. The corporate mentioned the brand new mannequin will stick to a gasoline engine, a technique that contrasts with a few of its rivals which can be going electrical. Photograph: Rebecca Prepare dinner/Reuters

Ford filed two motions Monday within the state court docket of Gwinnett County in Georgia. One movement sought a brand new trial, whereas the opposite challenged the punitive damages imposed on the corporate in August.

James Butler, an lawyer representing the plaintiffs, mentioned he would tackle the factors Ford raised in these motions and that he doesn’t consider Ford has a protection to current.

Ford’s response is the newest in a case that started in 2016, when the household of Melvin and Voncile Hill filed a lawsuit, alleging that the roof of the couple’s Ford F-250 fatally crushed them throughout a rollover crash and was faulty as designed.

A choose declared a mistrial within the first listening to, saying Ford violated a number of rulings relating to the admissibility of proof, in response to data filed within the lawsuit. The court docket, on account of the conduct, imposed sanctions on Ford in future authorized proceedings, the data present.

Ford mentioned within the filings Monday that it didn’t violate the orders that led to the sanctions ruling, in response to the brand new paperwork. Plaintiffs’ lawyer Mr. Butler disagreed with Ford’s assertion, saying the corporate’s conduct was clearly documented in court docket data.

Ford’s Mr. Boutrous mentioned the choose on the time directed the jury within the subsequent trial to think about sure issues as deemed established, together with that the roofs on Tremendous Obligation vans made by Ford between the 1999 and 2016 mannequin years have been unsafe and faulty.

Ford mentioned it had proof it couldn’t use on the trial this summer season demonstrating that Tremendous Obligation vans had a stronger roof construction than opponents. Moreover, Ford mentioned it might have proven that rising the energy of the roof would have made no distinction within the Hill crash. The jury might need dominated in another way have been it not for the sanctions order, Ford mentioned.

The deadly crash occurred in 2014, when the Hills have been driving from their farm in Georgia. The best entrance tire of the couple’s heavy-duty truck blew out and the automobile rolled over, in response to court docket paperwork.

The Hills have been crushed contained in the truck, Mr. Butler mentioned.

Attorneys for the Hill household argued at trial that the roofs put in on the 5.2 million Tremendous Obligation vans with mannequin years between 1999 and 2016 had a faulty design, have been dangerously weak, and that the corporate allegedly knew of the dangers they posed. Ford has maintained that the 2002 F-250 pickup truck cited within the lawsuit was moderately protected as designed, not faulty, and met business requirements.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys additionally mentioned in a pretrial order that Ford has recognized 162 lawsuits involving roof-crush incidents in these particular model-year vans.

Mr. Boutrous mentioned there are different elements that may trigger damage in a violent rollover crash that aren’t associated to the roof design. He additionally mentioned that, in 4 different lawsuits involving related rollover incidents in Ford vans, the corporate prevailed. Three of them have been determined by a jury, he mentioned.

Within the Hill case, Ford’s attorneys had argued that the tire put in on the couple’s truck had the inaccurate load-carrying capability, which led it to fail. Ford mentioned that when the tire ruptured, Mr. Hill improperly steered his truck, inflicting it to depart the roadway at a harmful angle.

“There are thousands and thousands of those autos on the highway round the USA,” Mr. Boutrous mentioned. “The protection file is robust.”

The Nationwide Freeway Site visitors Security Administration, the auto business’s high security regulator, reveals no investigative motion or security remembers associated to incidents of collapsed roofs involving 1999-2016 heavy-duty Ford pickups.

Write to Nora Eckert at and Ryan Felton at

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Firm, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Supply hyperlink

Rahul Diyashi
News and travel at your doorstep.

Related Articles


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest Articles

%d bloggers like this: