Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 09-25-2005

Case Style: Carlos Marroquin and Linda Marroquin Individually and On Behalf of the Estate of Matthew Marroquin, Deceases and As Next Friend of Mikayla Marroquin, a Minor Child et al. v. Ford Motor Company, et al.; In The County Court at Law No. 1, Nueces County, Texas.

Case Number: 04-61218-2

Judge: Robert Vargas

Court: County Court At Law No. 1

Plaintiff's Attorney: Mikal C. Watts, James H. Hada and Gregory Gowan, Watts Law Firm, LLP from Corpus Christi, Texas

Defendant's Attorney:

William L. Mennucci and Michael Eady Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, L.L.P.

Janice O’Grady and Vadim Alden-Aladerdov Bowman & Brooke, L.L.P. in San Jose, California

Janell M. Adams, Bowman & Brooke, L.L.P. in Phoenix, Arizona

Jim Halbrooks, Jr., Bowman & Brooke, L.L.P. in Minneapolis, Minnesota Jamie Arturo Saenz of Rodriguez, Colvin, Chaney & Saenz in Brownsville, Texas

Guy Allison, Allison Law Firm, Corpus Christi, Texas

Description: Product Liability – automotive design/occupant containment, occupant protection, glass and occupant restraint

SUMMARY :

This case arises out of a vehicular collision occurring on May 23, 2004. Plaintiffs Carlos Marroquin, Matthew Marroquin, Deceased; Mikayala R. Marroquin, a minor child; Shelby Salinas, a minor child; Dominga C. Luna; Ramiro Salinas; and Rosita Salinas were passengers in the 2000 Ford Expedition. Plaintiff Carlos Marroquin was driving in the 10400 block of South Padre Island Drive and Matthew Marroquin was riding in the driver's side third row seat when it was struck by a vehicle driven by Ruth Ellen Olson who ran a red light, striking the Ford Expedition in the rear quarter of the Expedition on the passenger side causing it to rollover one and one-quarter times. All of the passengers in the 2000 Ford Expedition were fully and properly restrained in their seatbelts. During the rollover, the third row driver's side, rear window glass shattered leaving the third row passenger compartment open and unprotected from side ejection. Matthew Marroquin, deceased, was ten (10) years old and was partially ejected through the unprotected side opening causing his head to be crushed between the vehicle and the ground. He sustained serious injuries which led to his death.

ALLEGATIONS:

At all times material hereto, Defendant Ford was in the business of designing, manufacturing and marketing automobiles, including vehicles such as the 2000 Ford Expedition sports utility vehicle, and did design, manufacture and market the 2000 Ford Expedition in question, equipped with occupant restraint system, including the seat belt system. Further, Defendant Ford through its Glass Division, manufactured designed and installed the window glass in the 2000 Ford Expedition at issue in this case. Defendant Ford is thus the "manufacturer" of the 2000 Ford Expedition sports utility vehicle within the meaning of TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 82.001(4), and is liable under the doctrine of strict products liability in tort for injuries and damages produced by defects in the 2000 Ford Expedition sports utility vehicle.

At all times material hereto, Defendant Ford was in the business of designing, manufacturing and marketing the automobiles that incorporated the occupant seat belt restraint system, including vehicles such as the 2000 Ford Expedition, and did design, manufacture and market the automobiles that incorporated the occupant seat belt restraint systems in the subject 2000 Ford Expedition, including the one used by Matthew Marroquin. Defendant Ford is thus the "manufacturer" of the occupant seat belt restraint system in the 2000 Ford Expedition within the meaning of TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 82.001(4), and is liable under the doctrine of strict products liability in tort for injuries and damages produced by defects in the 2000 Ford Expedition.

At the time the vehicle in question was designed, manufactured and sold by Defendant Ford, the same was defective in design and unreasonably dangerous, which defective and unreasonably dangerous condition was a producing cause of the injuries to Plaintiffs, the physical pain and mental anguish they suffered, the death of Matthew Marroquin, Deceased, and of the damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Defendant, Ford, selected and installed the defective glass that was unreasonably dangerous to consumers, including Matthew Marroquin, Deceased. The glass used in the side windows of the 2000 Ford Expedition was defective and unreasonably dangerous in that such glass was designed and manufactured so as to shatter and eject, regardless of whether it was impacted or to vacate the window portal, whether partial or full, leaving nothing to assist in the containment or otherwise mitigate occupant ejections. The 2000 Ford Expedition was defective at the time it left the control of Defendant Ford, as it was equipped with tempered glass in the side cargo or rear side windows, which was designed and manufactured to shatter and fly off when struck or broken. The 2000 Ford Expedition and the side window glass were not altered between the time it left the control of Defendant Ford up to the time of the accident.

At all times material hereto, Defendant Ford either in was in the business of designing, manufacturing and marketing the occupant restraint system in automobiles, including vehicles such as the subject vehicle, and did design, manufacture and market the occupant restraint system in the 2000 Ford Expedition. Defendant Ford is thus the "manufacturer" of the occupant restraint system in the 2000 Ford Expedition within the meaning of TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 82.001(4), and are liable under the doctrine of strict products liability in tort for injuries and damages produced by defects in the subject vehicle.

At the time of the incident, the occupant restraint system was in substantially the same condition as they were in at the time they left the possession of Defendant Ford. At the time the occupant restraint system in question was designed, manufactured and sold by Defendant Ford, the same was defective in design and unreasonably dangerous. In particular, the defective nature of the design of the subject vehicle included defects in design; crashworthiness, seating and occupant restraint system. Additionally, the defective design of the occupant restraint system failed to restrain Matthew Marroquin in his seat during a foreseeable rollover event. The defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the 2000 Ford Expedition and/or the occupant restraint system that Matthew Marroquin was utilizing at the time of the incident made the basis of this lawsuit, was a producing cause of the injuries to Plaintiffs and of the damages suffered by Plaintiffs.

At the time the vehicle in question was designed, manufactured and sold by Defendant Ford, the same was defective in design and unreasonably dangerous. In particular, the defective nature of the design of the vehicle included defects in occupant protection and glazing which are further amplified when coupled with Defendant Ford's knowledge that trucks of this type are more susceptible to rollovers. The defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the vehicle was a producing cause of the injuries to the Plaintiffs and of the damages suffered by them.

At the time of the collision in question, the vehicle in question was in substantially the same condition as it was in at the time it left the possession of Defendant Ford. Moreover, a safer alternative design existed at the time the product was manufactured. The safer alternative design would have prevented or significantly reduced the risk of the Plaintiffs' injuries or the Plaintiffs' damages, without substantially impairing the product's utility. Furthermore, the safer alternative design was economically and technologically feasible at the time the product left the control of Defendant Ford by the application of existing or reasonably achievable scientific knowledge. The safer alternative designs include but are not limited to an adjustable D-ring mounted to the D-pillar of the Expedition, cinching lap belt, belt pretensioners, seat integrated restraints, all as more fully detailed in Plaintiffs' experts reports and deposition testimony. Additionally, a safer alternative design would have been utilizing laminated glass in the cargo or rear side windows of the Expedition all as more fully detailed in Plaintiffs' experts reports and deposition testimony. The omission of the previously referenced alternative designs taken together, separately or in combination was a proximate cause of the injuries to Matthew Marroquin, the physical pain and mental anguish he suffered, his death, and of the damages suffered by Plaintiffs.

Furthermore, the federal safety standard was inadequate to protect the public, including the Plaintiffs, from unreasonable risks of injury and damage. Defendant Ford knew that its vehicle contained a defect causally related to Matthew Marroquin, Deceased's injury as well as to the motor vehicle safety; furthermore, Defendant Ford failed to give notice to either the federal government that promulgated the applicable safety standards or regulations, nor did Defendant Ford give notice by first class mail to Plaintiffs. Furthermore, Ford concealed from the public the rollover propensity and lack of occupant protection associated with the Ford Expedition.

Defendant Ford committed acts of omission and commission, which collectively and severally, constituted negligence, which negligence was a proximate cause of the injuries to Matthew Marroquin, the physical pain and mental anguish he suffered, his death, and of the damages suffered by Plaintiffs.

In particular, Defendant Ford committed acts of negligence including, but not limited to, the following:

1. Failing to design the product so the occupant restraint system would adequately restrain Matthew Marroquin during a foreseeable vehicle rollover;

2. Failing to adequately test the product to discover the dangerous nature of the product;

3. Failing to take action to investigate and correct problems with the product after learning of its risk to cause serious bodily injury; and

4. Failing to provide Ford Expedition passengers with adequate protection from rollover injuries after repeatedly learning of the Expedition's rollover propensity and lack of adequate occupant protection.

INJURY/DAMAGES:

As a result of the collision in question, Matthew Marroquin, Deceased, sustained mental anguish and physical pain prior to his death. His estate is entitled to recover for his mental anguish, physical pain and necessary funeral bills and expenses.

As a result of the rollover in question and as a result of the injuries to and consequent death of their child and brother, Mr. and Mrs. Marroquin have suffered damages in the past and in the future, including pecuniary damages, mental anguish and loss of consortium, for which damages are sought under the Texas Wrongful Death Act.

Matthew Marroquin, Deceased, is the son of Carlos Marroquin and Linda Marroquin and the brother of Mikayla Marroquin, all of whom were present at the time of the accident, saw Matthew Marroquin alive, witnessed the fatal injuries suffered by Matthew Marroquin, Deceased and personally witnessed his injuries during the occurrence of the incident made the basis of this suit. Plaintiffs Carlos Marroquin and Linda Marroquin and Mikayla Marroquin suffered shock as a result of the direct emotional impact the Plaintiffs suffered from the sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident and subsequent death of Matthew Marroquin, Deceased. Plaintiffs Carlos Marroquin and Linda Marroquin and Mikayla Marroquin were and are closely related to Matthew Marroquin, Deceased. Plaintiffs Carlos Marroquin and Linda Marroquin and Mikayla Marroquin were therefore "bystanders" to Matthew Marroquin's fatal injury and death as that term is defined under the law of the State of Texas and herein asserts their claims as bystanders.

Outcome: $42,010,877

AWARD BREAKDOWN

Question No. 1 -Design Defect - YES

Question No. 2 -Negligence of Other Driver - YES

Question No. 3 -% Responsibility - FORD 90%; 10%

Question No. 4 -Linda Marroquin’s Damages - PAST $3,000,000; - FUTURE: $4,000,000

Question No. 5 -Carlos Marroquin’s Damages - PAST $3,000,000; - FUTURE: $4,000,000

Question No. 6 -Contemporaneous Perception by Sister Mikayla - YES

Question No. 7 -Mikayla's Damages - PAST: $3,000,000;

- FUTURE: $4,000,000 Question No. 8 -Matthew's Damages _ (A) P&S - $1,000,000 (b) Meds - $2,318 (c) Funeral - $8,559

Question No. 9 Gross Negligence - YES

Question No. 10: Exemplary Damages - $20,000,000

AMOUNT PLEAD FOR: To be determined by the trier of fact.

PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND: $30,000,000 during closing arguments of trial (no offers of settlement were made prior to trial)

DEFENDANTS’ OFFER: Offer of high ($5,000,000) /low ($2,000,000) was rejected.

Plaintiff's Experts: Marshall Paulo – occupant restraints Testified live

Dr. David Feltoon - Psychologist Testified live

Dr. Stephen Batzer – glass and glazing Testified live

Mr. Tom Feaheny – glass and glazing Testified live

Dr. Joseph Burton - Biomechanics Testified live

Mr. Alan Kam – NHTSA Issues, Regulatory Compliance Testified live

Wayne McCracken – accident reconstruction Testified live

Defendant's Experts: Kevan Granat – accident reconstuction Testified live

Robert Piziali, Ph.D., P.E. - Biomechanics Testified live

Eddie Cooper – occupant restraint system Testified live

Richard Morrison – glass and glazing Testified live

Comments: Reported by James H. Hada



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: