Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, EXPERT EVIDENCE—MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT—La. App.: With expert testimony excluded, claimant could not establish design defect claims against Ford Motor Company, (Aug 27, 2026)

By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.

The case involved causation and design issues that were of sufficient complexity to be beyond the expertise of the average judge and juror.

A Louisiana state appellate court has affirmed the holding of a state district court that design defect claims against Ford Motor Company involving its 2012 Lincoln Navigator failed to survive summary judgment. The appellate court found that an opinion offered by the claimant’s expert witness hinged on an assumption that was contrary to and unsupported by the facts and hence was properly excluded. Without the expert testimony, the claimant lacked evidence to support the elements of her defective design claim (Gordon v. Ford Motor Company, La. App., No. 25-CA-100 C/W 25-C-85 (La. App. Aug. 25, 2026)).

Background. The claimant alleged that a design defect in her 2012 Lincoln Navigator, manufactured by Ford Motor Company, caused her injuries in a May 22, 2021, collision in Pearl River County, Mississippi. She filed suit against Ford under the Louisiana Product Liability Act (LPLA), alleging that, as a result of the collision, she struck her head on the driver’s side seat belt guide (the “D-ring”), which pivoted upward upon impact. She alleged that when her head struck the D-ring, an artery in her head was punctured or lacerated, causing her to sustain serious injuries. The claimant further alleged that at the time of the collision, she was using the seat belt for its intended purposes and in a reasonably foreseeable manner but that the D-ring was unsafe, defective, and/or that it malfunctioned at the time of the accident. She alleged various acts of negligence on the part of Ford in the design and manufacture of the D-ring, and in the sale and distribution of the vehicle containing the allegedly faulty D ring. The claimant retained a collision reconstructionist and forensic engineer as an expert witness.

Ford moved for summary judgment and sought to exclude the expert testimony via a Daubert motion. The district court excluded portions of the expert testimony. The court then granted summary judgment to Ford, concluding that, without the excluded testimony, the claimant would be unable to satisfy her burden at trial to demonstrate that the D-ring presented an unreasonable risk of harm due to a design defect and that there were other available, financially-feasible designs that would have prevented her injury or made it substantially less likely. The current appeal ensued.

Exclusion of expert testimony. On appeal, the claimant argued that the district court erred in striking the expert’s opinion that the D-ring’s plastic overmold became displaced or dislodged as a result of contact with the claimant’s head on the basis it was an undisputed fact that the partial plastic overmold of the D-ring did not become displaced, even partially, during the accident. The district court found that the expert’s opinion was “that completely encasing the D-ring in plastic would eliminate the potential of an unexposed (sic) metal edge.” This opinion presupposed that there was an exposed metal edge on the D-ring of the 2012 Navigator because the plastic trim cover became dislodged upon making contact with the claimant’s head. This supposition was inaccurate, the appeals court said. The evidence showed that “the cover was removed by the husband” after the accident. Therefore, the district court found that the expert was “relying upon inaccurate information... that the – [the metal underneath the plastic overlay] was exposed.”

The appeals court noted that Code of Evidence Article 702(A)(2) provides that the proponent of the expert’s testimony, in this case the claimant, has the burden of proving that the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data. The appellate court agreed with the district court that the claimant failed to carry that burden.

Photographs taken immediately after the accident depict the plastic trim surrounding the D-ring’s outer rim as being intact. Thus, photographic evidence did not support the expert’s testimony and opinions that the D-ring became dislodged, displaced or dislocated as a result of the claimant’s head striking it. Moreover, Article 702(A) places the burden on the claimant, not Ford, to demonstrate that her expert witness relied on sufficient facts and data. She did not meet this burden, said the court.

The expert also opined that had the plastic trim remained in place, the claimant would not have experienced a head wound. The expert testified that he considered, and dismissed, the other components of the restraint system as causes of the claimant’s head wound because those components were encased in plastic. He identified the metal portion of the D-ring that sat underneath the plastic trim surrounding the D-ring’s perimeter as the sole source of the claimant’s head wound. The only explanation that he offered as to how the metal would have been exposed was that the plastic trim became displaced due to making contact with the claimant’s head. By his own testimony, however, if the plastic trim was not displaced or dislodged, but was in place, she could not have sustained a head laceration/puncture wound. Testimony and the photographs of the 2012 Navigator taken immediately after the accident demonstrate that the plastic trim was not dislodged as a result of coming into contact with the claimant’s head or otherwise. The expert produced no evidence that the polymer casing of the D-ring dislodged or moved; his opinion was based on his own supposition. Accordingly, the appellate court found that the expert’s challenged opinion hinged on an assumption that was contrary to and unsupported by the facts.

Design defect claims. At the hearing on the summary judgment motion, Ford argued that without the expert’s challenged opinions, the claimant lacked evidence to support the elements of her defective design claim. Ford specifically argued that the claimant could not prove that the alleged design defect was the proximate cause of her injury and she did not have any evidence to prove that an alternative design would have prevented her injuries without the expert’s testimony. In response, the claimant argued that her own testimony indicating that her head hit the D-ring was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. She further contended that testimony from Ford’s corporate representative confirming that Ford previously used a D-ring completely covered in plastic, created a genuine issue of material fact as to the alternative design elements.

Upon de novo review, the court found that the claimant failed to meet her burden to establish the existence of any genuine issue of material fact as to these elements of her defective design claim. The expert opined that the only way the D ring could have caused the injury at issue was if the overmold came off during the accident. However, the undisputed evidence established that the overmold was not removed until after the accident thereby resulting in the exclusion of this expert testimony. Thus, the only remaining evidence to support the claim that the design of the D-ring was unreasonably dangerous and a proximate cause of her injury was her own testimony that her head hit the D-ring. However, said the court, mere evidence that an accident and injury occurred is not sufficient to establish that a product is unreasonably dangerous by design.

In addition, without the expert testimony, the appeals court found that the claimant could not satisfy her burden to prove that an alternative design existed at the time the product left the manufacturer’s control, that the alternative design was capable of preventing the damage, and that the risk avoided by that alternative outweighed the burden and adverse utility consequences of adopting it. Louisiana courts have consistently required expert testimony to establish the elements of a defective design products liability claim, unless the product is relatively uncomplicated and the judge or jury can rely on common sense to resolve the issues.

This matter involves causation and design issues that are of sufficient complexity to be beyond the expertise of the average judge and juror and that are not resolved by simply employing common sense, said the appeals court. Further, the court found that testimony from Ford’s corporate representative confirming that it used a complete plastic overmold in the Lincoln Navigator from 2003 to 2007 was not sufficient to satisfy the claimant’s burden to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the elements of her defective design claim. In addition, the appeals court agreed with the district court that the claimant did not point to any evidence supporting her construction or composition, inadequate warning, and express warranty claims under the LPLA.

Accordingly, the Louisiana appellate court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing with prejudice, all of the claims against Ford Motor Company.

The case is No. 25-CA-100 C/W 25-C-85.

Judge: Schlegel, S.

Attorneys: Christiaan H. Highsmith (Chehardy Sherman Williams Recile & Hayes LLP) for Janis H. Gordon. Kim M. Boyle (Phelps Dunbar LLP) for Ford Motor Company.

Companies: Ford Motor Company

MainStory: TopStory ExpertEvidenceNews DesignManufacturingNews MotorEquipmentNews LouisianaNews