Date: 11-21-2006

Case Style: Kevin Moody and Veronica Moody, Individually and on behalf of the Estate of Tyler Moody, deceased, v. Ford Motor Company

Case Number: 4:03-cv-00784-CVE-PJC

Judge: Claire V. Egan

Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, Tulsa County

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Clark Brewster and Montgomery Lair of Brewster & De Angelis, PLLC, Tulsa, Oklahoma

Defendant's Attorney:

Lee Mickus of Snell & Wilmer, Denver, Colorado; Christopher Channing Spencer and Robert Latane Wise of Bowman & Brooke, LLP, Richmond, Virginia; and Mary Quinn-Cooper, Tom Steichen, and James Andrew Lee Richardson of Eldridge Cooper Steichen & Leach PLLC, Tulsa, Oklahoma

Description:

This was an action under the doctrine of manufacturers= products liability regarding a two-door 1995 Ford Explorer Sport. The parties to this case are the Plaintiffs, Veronica Moody and Kevin Moody, individually and as parents and next friend of Tyler Moody, deceased, and the Defendant, Ford Motor Company.

All parties agree that on January 16, 2003, Plaintiffs= decedent, Tyler Moody, was driving a two-door 1995 Ford Explorer Sport, when he was in a single vehicle accident in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Plaintiffs= decedent, Tyler Moody, died on January 16, 2003, following the accident. The parties also agree that the two-door 1995 Ford Explorer Sport was designed, in part, and manufactured by Ford Motor Company.

Plaintiffs claimed that the vehicle was defective, because the roof structure was unreasonably weak and would collapse during foreseeable rollovers.

Defendant asserted that the 1995 two-door Ford Explorer Sport was not defective in design and that no actions on the part of Defendant caused and/or contributed to Plaintiffs= decedent=s death. Defendant asserts that the 1995 two-door Explorer Sport met or exceeded all applicable federal standards and was state-of-the-art. Defendant further asserts that the Plaintiffs= decedent was the sole cause of this accident. Defendant further asserts that any claim for damages is not justified under the facts of this case.

Federal Jurisdiction was based on 28 U.S.C. ' 1332. Plaintiffs are residents of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. Defendant is a corporation headquartered in the State of Michigan. There exists complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.

The following facts are admitted and require no proof:

1. Tyler Moody was involved in a single motor vehicle accident resulting in a vehicle rollover on January 16, 2003, at the curve along East 121st Street and Delaware Avenue in Tulsa, County;

2. Tyler Moody was pronounced dead on January 16, 2003;

3. At the time of the accident, Tyler Moody was driving a two-door 1995 Ford Explorer Sport 4x4;

4. Plaintiffs are residents of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma; and,

5. Defendant is a Delaware corporation headquartered in the State of Michigan.

The following issues of law, and no others, remained to be litigated upon the trial:

1. Ford's objections to Plaintiffs= deposition designations and Plaintiffs= use of depositions taken in other lawsuits

2. Evidentiary objections

3. Whether Ford is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to Plaintiffs= claims of liability

4. Whether Ford is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to Plaintiffs= punitive damages claim

5. Whether Plaintiffs= claim for punitive damages is constitutionally defective and otherwise improper and should be dismissed for one or more of the following reasons:

a. Whether Plaintiffs= claim for punitive damages can be sustained because any award of punitive damages under Oklahoma law, without bifurcating the trial and trying all punitive damages issues only if and after liability on the merits has been found, would violate Ford=s due process rights under the United States and Oklahoma constitutions and would be improper under common law and public policies of the State of Oklahoma and other applicable laws and statutes;

b. Whether Plaintiffs= claim for punitive damages can be sustained because any award of punitive damages under Oklahoma law, subject to no pre-determined limit (such as a maximum multiple of compensatory damages or a maximum amount) on the amount of punitive damages that a jury may impose would violate Ford=s due process rights under the United States and Oklahoma constitutions and would be improper under common law and public policies of the State of Oklahoma and other applicable laws and statutes;

c. Whether Plaintiffs= claim for punitive damages can be sustained because the standard for determining liability for punitive damages under Oklahoma law is vague and arbitrary and does not define with sufficient clarity the conduct or mental state which gives rise to such a claim. Therefore, any award of punitive damages would violate Ford=s due process rights under the United States and Oklahoma constitutions and would be improper under common law and public policies of the State of Oklahoma and other applicable laws and statutes;

d. Whether Plaintiffs= claim for punitive damages can be sustained because there are no meaningful standards for determining the amount of any punitive damages award under Oklahoma law and because Oklahoma law does not state with sufficient clarity the consequences of conduct giving rise to a claim for punitive damages. Therefore, any award of punitive damages would violate Ford=s due process rights under the United States and Oklahoma constitutions;

e. Whether Plaintiffs= claim for punitive damages can be sustained because any award of punitive damages under Oklahoma law by a jury that is not adequately instructed on the limits of punitive damages which may be imposed to further the applicable principles of deterrence and punishment would violate Ford=s due process rights under the United States and Oklahoma constitutions and would be improper under common law and public policies of the State of Oklahoma and other applicable laws and statutes;

f. Whether Plaintiffs= claim for punitive damages can be sustained because any award of punitive damages under Oklahoma law by a jury that is not expressly prohibited from awarding punitive damages, or determining the amount of an award of punitive damages, in whole or in part, on the basis of invidiously discriminatory characteristics, including the residence, wealth, and corporate status of Ford, would violate Ford=s due process rights under the United States and Oklahoma constitutions and would be improper under common law and public policies of the State of Oklahoma and other applicable laws and statutes;

g. Whether Plaintiffs= claim for punitive damages can be sustained because any award of punitive damages, which is not subject to trial court or appellate court review for reasonableness and furtherance of legitimate purposes on the basis of objective standards would violate Ford=s due process rights under the United States and Oklahoma constitutions and would be improper under common law and public policies of the State of Oklahoma and other applicable laws and statutes;

h. Whether Plaintiffs= claim for punitive damages can be sustained because any award of punitive damages under Oklahoma law, without proof of every element beyond a reasonable doubt, would violate Ford=s rights under Amendments IV, V, VI, and XIV of the United States Constitution and the related provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution and would be improper under common law and public policies of the State of Oklahoma and other applicable laws and statutes;

i. Whether Plaintiffs= claim for punitive damages against Ford can be maintained, because any award of punitive damages based on anything other than Ford=s conduct in connection with the design, manufacture, and sale of the specific single vehicle that is the subject of this lawsuit would violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the related provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution, and would be improper under the common law and public policies of the State of Oklahoma, because any other judgment for punitive damages in this case cannot protect Ford against impermissible multiple punishment for the same wrong and against punishment for extra-territorial conduct, including especially conduct that is lawful in states other than the State of Oklahoma. In addition, any such award would violate principles of comity under the laws of the State of Oklahoma;

j. Whether Plaintiffs= claim for punitive damages can be sustained because any judgment for punitive damages in this case cannot protect Ford against multiple punishments for the same alleged wrong in future cases; therefore, any award of punitive damages based on anything other than Ford=s conduct in connection with the sale of the subject 1995 Ford Explorer would violate Ford=s due process rights under the United States and Oklahoma constitutions and other applicable laws and statutes;

k. Whether Plaintiffs= claim for punitive damages against Ford can be maintained because the law of Michigan applies to punitive damages. Pursuant to that law, no punitive damages can be awarded.

The following issues of fact, and no others, remained to be litigated upon the trial:

1. Elements of strict liability.

2. Causation.

3. Damages to be awarded, if any, and punitive damages, if any.

4. Defendant=s Defenses

a. The subject vehicle was neither defective nor unreasonably dangerous when it left Defendant=s possession and control;

b. The subject vehicle was reasonably safe when it left Ford=s possession and control;

c. The subject vehicle met applicable safety standards;

d. The subject vehicle was state-of-the-art;

e. Plaintiffs= claimed damages were not proximately caused by any defect or unreasonably dangerous condition in the vehicle;

f. The proximate cause, or sole proximate cause, of Plaintiffs= claimed damages was not a defect in the subject vehicle;

g. Plaintiffs= claimed damages are the result of acts and omissions of others over whom Defendant had no control.

Outcome: Plaintiffs' verdict for $15 million.

Plaintiff's Experts:

George Hall, P.E., Tulsa, Oklahoma, accident reconstrucitonis; Stephen Forrest, Safety Analysis & Forensic Engineering Goleta, Georgia; Joseph Burton, M.D., Alpharetta, Georgia, forensic pathologist; Mary Anzalone, M.D., Houston, Texas, forensic pathologist;

Defendant's Experts:

Debora Marth, Ph.D., Safety Forensics, PLLC, Flat Rock, Michicagn, automobile engineering and design; Kevan Granat, Tandy Engineering & Associates, Inc., The Woodlands, Texas, accidential reconstructionist; Ken Orlowski, Safety Analysis, Inc., Lake Orion, Michigan, rollover accident expert; Alfred Bowles, Biodynamics Research Corporation, San Antonio, Texas, biomechanical engineering; Pamela M. Oviatt, Oviatt Engineering, Inc., Logan, Louisiana, accident reconstructionist;

Comments: None