Preview:

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE David W. Stone IV Stone Law Office Anderson, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC. Mary K. Reeder Riley, Bennett & Egloff, LLP Indianapolis, Indiana Damond R. Mace Andrew R. Kruppa Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P. Cleveland, Ohio ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY Nelson D. Alexander Eric A. Riegner Maggie L. Smith Frost Brown Todd LLC Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR AMICUS CURIAE INDIANA TRIAL LAWYERS ASS'N Thomas C. Doehrman Doehrman-Chamberlain Indianapolis, Indiana

Richard S. Eynon David M. Brinley Eynon Law Group, P.C. Columbus, Indiana Richard L. Denney Lydia Joann Barrett Denney & Barrett Norman, Oklahoma

FILED
Oct 13 2010, 3:06 pm
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

______________________________________________________________________________

Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________ No. 73S05-0909-CV-404 TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC., AND FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
v.

In the

Appellants (Defendants below),

SALLY J. MOORE, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DANIEL A. MOORE, DECEASED, Appellee (Plaintiff below). ________________ Appeal from the Shelby Circuit Court, No. 73C01-0305-CT-13 The Honorable Charles D. O'Connor, Judge _________________________________ On Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 73A05-0710-CV-552 _________________________________ October 13, 2010 Dickson, Justice. Daniel Moore died when, despite wearing his seatbelt, he was ejected through the sunroof of his Ford Explorer vehicle during a rollover that followed a tire failure as he was driving on

Interstate 65 near Edinburgh, Indiana. He was survived by his wife and one minor son. His widow, as personal representative of his estate, brought this wrongful death action. At the conclusion of a fourteen-day trial, the jury found the total damages to be $25,000,000 and allocated fault as follows: decedent Daniel Moore, 33%; defendant Ford Motor Company ("Ford"), 31%; nonparty Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company ("Goodyear"), 31%;1 and defendant TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc. ("TRW"), 5%. Judgments were entered against Ford in the sum of $7,750,000 and against TRW in the sum of $1,250,000. Appeals were commenced by both defendants, and the plaintiff cross-appealed. Finding the evidence insufficient to support the jury's verdicts against Ford and TRW, the Court of Appeals reversed as to both defendants. Ford Motor Co. v. Moore, 905 N.E.2d 418 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). We granted transfer and now reverse the judgment as to TRW, reverse the allocation of fault to nonparty Goodyear, reverse the determination of total damages, and remand for retrial to (a) allocate 100% of the fault between the plaintiff and Ford, and (b) redetermine the total damages subject to fault allocation unless the plaintiff accepts remittitur as hereinafter specified.

In its appeal from the jury verdict and adverse judgment, Ford lists the following issues: (a) sufficiency of the evidence on the design defect claim; (b) the effect of a denial of a motion for directed verdict upon the rule favoring affirmance of a general verdict supported by any evidence; (c) the prohibition of medical causation testimony; and (d) the failure to grant a mistrial following an in-court demonstration by the plaintiff. TRW's appeal focuses on: (a) denial of its motion for judgment on the evidence; (b) exclusion of evidence; and (c) damages in excess of the plaintiff's demand, insufficiently supported, and resulting from improper closing argument. Ford's appellant's brief also "adopts and incorporates" without further argument substantially all of TRW's appellate arguments. The plaintiff's cross-appeal claims there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's apportionment of 31% fault to nonparty Goodyear.

1. Ford's Insufficient Evidence Claims

Ford seeks reversal and judgment in its favor on grounds of insufficient evidence. It asGoodyear settled its dispute with the plaintiff prior to trial but remained in the case as a nonparty defendant.
1

2

serts that the plaintiff's case against it was based on three theories of liability: (a) defective seatbelt system; (b) defective sunroof; and (c) defective design regarding the Ford Explorer's handling and stability characteristics. Ford argues that the evidence fails to prove at least one element of each of these theories. In response, the plaintiff argues that the evidence was sufficient to support the claims alleging defects as to the seatbelt and the sunroof.

In the appellate review of a claim of insufficient evidence in a civil case, we "affirm a verdict when, considering the probative evidence and reasonable inferences, a reasonable jury could have arrived at the same determination." Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp. v. Powell, 906 N.E.2d 823, 830 (Ind. 2009). We neither weigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility but consider only the evidence and inferences most favorable to the judgment. Martin v. Roberts, 464 N.E.2d 896, 904 (Ind. 1984); Beall v. Mooring Tax Asset Group, 813 N.E.2d 778, 781 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. not sought. We will reverse only "if there is a lack of evidence or evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn on an essential element of the plaintiff's claim." Martin, 464 N.E.2d at 904.

As to the plaintiff's claim of negligent seatbelt system design, the parties agree that the plaintiff's decedent was ejected through the sunroof in the rollover when his seatbelt developed slack. Competing expert witnesses disputed the cause of the slack. Ford contends that the evidence was insufficient because it failed to establish the requisite standard of care and failed to prove that Ford's conduct fell below such standard. Ford argues that because automotive design is outside a layman's common experience, the plaintiff was required, and failed, to present competent expert testimony establishing the particular standard of care and the breach of such standard. Ford urges that the plaintiff should have presented evidence "concerning the methodology a reasonable manufacturer would employ when designing a seat belt system or selecting its component parts." Ford's Appellant's Br. at 29. Ford also adopts and incorporates TRW's arguments alleging insufficient evidence. To the extent that TRW's arguments extend to Ford, they are that the plaintiff failed to present evidence of the proper standard of care; to offer testing, data, studies, or other evidence to show a safer, more practicable product design; and to rebut evidence that its proposed alternative design itself presented safety concerns.

3

The Indiana Product Liability Act generally imposes strict liability for physical harm caused by a product in an unreasonably dangerous defective condition. Ind. Code

Download TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc., and Ford Motor Company v. Sally J. Moore, et a

Indiana Law