Police and community roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

December 6 roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Rewarding officiousness is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Annals of paternalism is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

In May 2001, Cheryl Jane Hale was driving four children to a sleepover in her 1987 Ford Bronco. She didn’t bother to have the children wear their seat belts, so, when she took her eyes off the road to argue with the backseat passengers, and thus drove off the road and flipped the car, 12-year-old Jesse Branham was thrown from the car and suffered brain damage. A jury in Hampton County, South Carolina (the second jury to be impaneled—the first one was dismissed in a mistrial when it was discovered after two weeks of trial that five of the jurors were former clients of Branham’s lawyers) decided that this was only 45% Hale’s fault, held Ford 55% responsible, which puts Ford entirely on the hook for $31 million in damages.

On Monday, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed because of prejudicial closing arguments that relied heavily on inadmissible evidence. More importantly for lawyers practicing in South Carolina, the Court adopted “the risk-utility test with its requirement of showing a feasible alternative design.”

How bad of a judicial hellhole is Hampton County? Though Hale was a co-defendant, she cooperated with the plaintiffs throughout the trial in their case against Ford, even sitting at the plaintiffs’ table; but because the judge classified Hale as a co-defendant, it meant that Hale got half of the peremptory challenges of the “defense.” More from Comer; no press coverage that I’ve seen yet. (cross-posted from Point of Law)

Update: Branham v. Ford is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

May 18 roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Sweet land of traffic stops is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

As we stated in January 2006,

Rose Marie Munoz wasn’t wearing her seatbelt in 2002 when the spare tire on the 1992 Mazda Navajo (a rebadged Ford Explorer) failed and driver Derek Saenz rolled over the SUV; the other three occupants of the vehicle were uninjured. Munoz was ejected and temporarily paralyzed, has lost use of her right hand, and now walks with a limp. A Nueces County, Texas jury held Ford 75% (and Mazda another 10%) responsible for $29 million in damages, on the grounds that Ford should have done more to warn consumers about the dangers of ten-year-old tires—even though the tires in question were the notorious Bridgestone/Firestone tires that had actually been recalled in 2000, but had been left on the SUV. Jurors said they were influenced by the fact that Ford has since added a warning in their owners’ manual about replacing tires more than six years old. Firestone settled the case, allowing the plaintiffs to focus blame on Ford at trial. Ford blames the accident on driver error, and will appeal. (Sean M. Wood, “Ford hit with big judgment in Nueces”, San Antonio Express-News, Jan. 28; Karen Lundegaard, “Texas Jury Slaps Ford With $29 Million Verdict”, Wall Street Journal, Jan. 27; AP, Jan. 27; plaintiffs’ lawyer press release).

Alas, I could find no record of an appeal, which suggests that Ford was pressured into settling. (I’m happy to be corrected by our Texas readers if I’ve searched the databases wrong.) But I learned something else about the case that we hadn’t previously commented on. I found the accident report (page 30-31 of this PDF). The accident occurred in Atascosa County, just south of Bexar County, the home of San Antonio, where the driver and the plaintiff were from. But the lawsuit was brought in Neuces County in Corpus Christi–117 miles away from the accident, and further from San Antonio. Add forum shopping to the many sins of this litigation.

Update: Rose Marie Munoz v. Ford is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

$6.5 million to driver not wearing seatbelt is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Statement:

The following statement can be attributed to Steve Hantler, Assistant General Counsel, DaimlerChrysler Corporation:

“This tragedy occurred because an inexperienced 17-year-old driver fell asleep at the wheel and crashed into the Mohr’s vehicle at a devastatingly high speed. As a result the unbelted rear passenger was thrown into the back of the driver’s seat, contributing to the fatal injuries Ms. Mohr sustained.

“While serious accidents often have tragic consequences, this high speed accident highlights why occupants who choose not to wear their seat belts not only put themselves in danger, but can pose an even greater danger to other occupants in the vehicle. Accident reconstruction experts believe the fatal injuries to Vickie Mohr and Maurine Heathscott might have been prevented had all the passengers been wearing their seat belts properly.

“The Mohr’s Dodge Caravan met every applicable federal safety standard as well as DaimlerChrysler Corporation’s own rigorous testing, but the seat belts must be used properly to offer maximum protection to occupants. Real-world evidence demonstrates that minivans are among the safest vehicles on the road, and Chrysler Group minivans are among the best vehicles in the minivan class in safety and security.

“To impose any punitive damages in these circumstances, let alone $48 million, is an especially egregious miscarriage of justice. This award clearly violates the federal due process restrictions on punitive damages recently announced by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“While we share the jury’s sympathy with the Mohr family over this tragedy, the outcome of this accident was not the result of any defect with the vehicle. We will appeal this outrageous and unconstitutional verdict.”

Background:
On July 5, 2002, Ms. Vickie Mohr was driving her 2000 Dodge Caravan on U.S. Highway 67 near Corning Arkansas. Her mother, Ms. Maurine Heathscott was sitting in the front passenger seat. All of the physical evidence from the accident indicates that Ms. Heathscott was not wearing a seat belt. Nine-year-old Victoria Mohr, seated in the rear behind the front passenger, was wearing her lap belt only and had slipped the shoulder belt behind her back. Ms. Mohr’s sister, Carolyn Jones, was seated behind the driver and has admitted she was not belted.

While approaching in the opposite lane, 17-year-old Brett McAfee fell asleep behind the wheel of a 1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee. He then drifted into oncoming traffic, sideswiped a 1993 GMC Sierra pickup truck and struck the Dodge Caravan. When the Jeep Grand Cherokee and the minivan collided, the Jeep Grand Cherokee was traveling at approximately 45 m.p.h. while the Caravan was traveling at approximately 30 m.p.h., resulting in a catastrophic collision with a closing speed of over 70 m.p.h.

Tragically, Ms. Mohr and Ms. Heathscott suffered fatal injuries. The coroner’s report concluded that Vickie Mohr was killed due to blunt force trauma to back of the head; experts determined that the trauma was caused when Mohr was struck by the 245-pound unrestrained occupant seated directly behind her, Ms. Jones. Nine-year-old Victoria Mohr sustained an abdominal injury requiring surgery, and Ms. Jones sustained fractures to her left arm and a pelvic fracture.

Brett McAfee was criminally charged with vehicular homicide and pled no contest. The plaintiffs filed suit against DaimlerChrysler Corporation.

On February 14, 2005, a Memphis, Tenn., jury found DaimlerChrysler Corporation 46% at fault for Ms. Mohr’s fatal injuries and 55% at fault for Ms. Heathscott’s fatal injuries. Brett McAfee, the driver of the Jeep Grand Cherokee, was also found partially responsible for both Ms. Mohr’s and Ms. Heathscott’s fatal injuries. Carolyn Jones, the unrestrained rear passenger behind the driver, was found partially responsible for Ms. Mohr’s death.

DaimlerChrysler Corporation’s portion of the compensatory damages totaled $4.5 million. The jury did not find DaimlerChrysler Corporation at fault for the injuries of the two rear seat passengers, Ms. Jones and Victoria Mohr. On February 24, 2005, following a separate punitive damages proceeding, the jury awarded $48.77 million to Ms. Mohr’s estate.

DaimlerChrysler Media

Update: Mohr v. DaimlerChrysler $53 million verdict is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system