Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, EXPERT EVIDENCE—MOTOR VEHICLES—D. Kan.: Lacking expert evidence, rollover case against Ford dismissed, (Apr 2, 2020)

By David Yucht, J.D.

A mechanical engineer who worked for General Motors for 33 years, mostly as chief engineer for the Corvette, was not qualified to render an expert opinion involving the roof design of a Ford truck.

Because it determined that a vehicle crash victim’s expert witnesses were not qualified to render their opinions in his action against Ford Motor Company, the federal district court in Kansas excluded the proffered experts’ testimony and granted the motor vehicle manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment. The injured passenger had relied exclusively on his experts and without their testimony, he could not provide evidence of causation, design defect, or inadequacy of warnings (Wurm v. Ford Motors Co., April 1, 2020, Teeter, H.).

A man was injured when the 1999 F-250 Ford truck in which he was a passenger rolled over. He asserted that he sustained spinal injuries because of a defect in the truck’s roof which collapsed during the accident. Ford countered that the passenger was injured because of his failure to wear a seat belt and the driver’s negligence. The passenger sued Ford on strict liability claims, including failure to incorporate a safe design, a failure to use sufficiently strong materials in the truck’s roof, and a failure to adequately warn of the latent dangers in the roof. After striking deposition errata sheets proffered by witnesses for the passenger due to procedural irregularities, the court excluded the passenger’s expert testimony and granted Ford’s motion for summary judgment.

Expert witnesses—injury causation. Finding that neither of the passenger’s two expert witnesses—an injury causation witness and an automotive design witness—possessed the expertise necessary to render their opinions, the court granted Ford’s motion to bar testimony by the experts. The injury causation witness opined that the passenger’s injuries were caused when his body came into contact "with the crushed roof of the vehicle." Although he acknowledged that "diving" was a possibility because the passenger admitted not wearing a seat belt, the witness testified that the injuries resulted from the roof "crushing" onto the passenger as opposed to the passenger "diving" into the roof. He reasoned that the forces acting on the passenger during the accident could not have permitted the passenger to contact the roof before the roof crushed into the passenger.

This witness had a bachelor’s degree in life science and a master’s degree of science in anatomy and physiology. He was not a doctor, chiropractor, or engineer. He held no professional licenses and had never been published. His primary experience was in conducting autopsies as a pathology assistant. He had limited experience in analyzing injuries in rollover crashes and could only recall one case he worked on involving spinal injuries. At his deposition, the witness stated he would be testifying about occupant kinematics, including how the passenger moved during the accident and was injured as a result. He was not qualified to offer that testimony, as he had no education, knowledge, or relevant experience in that field.

Expert witnesses—automotive design. The court also precluded the passenger’s automotive design witness from testifying. His testimony focused on the impact of the accident on the occupants of the truck, and the design and performance of the truck’s roof. His report referenced a 2005 Ford Exponent roof crush test involving a later model Ford F-250 truck that had the same truck design, although it had a longer cab than the truck in the case at bar. In the 2005 test, a horizontal plate was driven downward onto the roof of the truck, which was rigidly supported from below. The truck roof collapsed in a V shape as the plate load reached peak load. Although the expert report in this case stated, "[i]t was now evident why the roof buckled downward in the middle in a V shape," the court noted that the report did not explain how it was evident, other than to state that the rear roof cross body beam failed. The witness concluded by stating that the V-shaped collapse "should have been caught in testing," and that Ford knew about the 2005 test and, therefore, was aware of "the rear center roof bow’s weakness."

The automotive design expert was a mechanical engineer who retired in 1992 after working for General Motors for 33 years, primarily as chief engineer for the Corvette. As chief engineer, he oversaw staff engineers who were tasked with design in their respective areas. However, he never worked on roof structures, and he never was involved with truck design. Further, he never conducted rollover testing to evaluate roof structures, and he had no knowledge of F-250 design criteria or roof strength compared to competitor vehicles. Nor did he know whether Ford ever tested the F-250 roof for crush strength, nor whether Ford violated any written standards or laws in the design of the 1999 F-250. Although the witness had experience in car design and engineering, he was not qualified to testify about design defects in a Ford F-250 truck roof. Moreover, to the extent the witness opined about how the occupants interacted with the truck during the accident, he needed to be versed in biomechanics, occupant kinematics, and occupant protection in rollovers. He was not. Given that it was unclear how the witness drew any of his conclusions, even if the court concluded that the witness was qualified in this instance, the court still would have concluded that his testimony was inadmissible.

Causation. The court granted summary judgment and dismissed the action. Expert testimony is required to prove a strict liability cause of action under Kansas law when the subject matter is complex and beyond a jury’s common knowledge. Here, the court had excluded both of the passenger’s experts. Expert evidence was necessary to this case. Without experts, he had no evidence of injury causation, design defect, latent danger in the truck, or the inadequacy of warnings. Therefore, summary judgment was required on all claims.

The case is No. 2:18-cv-02322-HLT.

Attorneys: Eric Kjorlie (Kjorlie Law Office) for Matthew R. Wurm. Paul F. Malek (HuieFernambacq& Stewart, LLP) for Ford Motor Co.

Companies: Ford Motor Co.

Cases: CourtDecisions ExpertEvidenceNews DesignManufacturingNews WarningsNews MotorVehiclesNews KansasNews