Hensler v. Ford Motor Co.

1. This is a products liability action in which Sandra Hensler1 claims that Ford Motor Company was negligent and strictly liable with respect to defects in the design of her 1987 Aerostar van; this negligence and the defects, she claims, were a cause of the serious injuries she sustained when her vehicle was hit from behind. The jury found that Ford was negligent in the design and testing of the driver's seat and the warning, but this negligence did not cause Hensler's injuries in the accident. It also found the seat was not defective and unreasonably dangerous. Hensler appeals the judgment entered on the verdict, contending that the jury instructions on strict product liability and enhanced injury were in error, and the court erred in denying modifications and instructions she proposed. We conclude that, as to those issues Hensler has properly preserved for appeal, the court either did not err in instructing the jury or the error did not affect her substantial rights. We therefore affirm.

Background

2. The accident occurred when Hensler's vehicle was hit from behind as she was slowing down to make a left turn, with her signal on. The driver of the rear vehicle, Paul Noe, was traveling fifty-five to fifty-six miles per hour. According to Hensler's and Ford's experts at trial, the change in velocity of the Aerostar on impact was between 26 and 29.3 miles per hour, and the severity of this impact was in the top 2% to 4% of all impacts. As the Aerostar accelerated forward from the impact, Hensler went backward relative to the vehicle. She did not have her seat belt on. The back of the driver's seat gave way to about a fifty-five-degree angle from its starting position of about twenty degrees, putting Hensler's head in a horizontal position relative to the back of the rear seat. Hensler hit her head on the back of the rear seat, breaking the sixth cervical vertebra at the base of her neck and causing partial quadriplegia.

3. At trial, Hensler's experts opined that the Aerostar driver's seat was defective and caused Hensler's injuries because it did not have sufficient strength and adequate head restraint, and that a properly designed seat would have prevented Hensler's injuries. According to one expert, the technology and knowledge to build an adequate seat existed in 1987, and both experts testified that Ford was negligent in failing to build an adequate seat. In their opinion, Ford was negligent for failing to dynamically crash test for seat performance and to have a specific design standard for seat performance in rear crashes.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the
full text of the Court's opinion.

¶37. We conclude Hensler has not preserved for appellate review the objections she now asserts to Wis JI-Civil 1723, nor her claim that the trial court erred in failing to give her proposed instruction on proof of negative facts. We also conclude the trial court's decision not to give her proposed instruction on alternative, safer design was a proper exercise of discretion.

By the Court. Judgment affirmed in favor of Defendant.

Unavailable

Unavailable

C.L.