State Court Reinstates Huge Ford Verdict
A state appeals court Friday reinstated a huge jury award against Ford Motor Co., ordering the company to pay $295 million to the family of three people who were killed when the metal-and-fiberglass roof of their 1978 Bronco sport utility vehicle buckled in a rollover wreck.
The damages award, believed to be the second-largest ever in an auto safety case, was thrown out by the trial judge in 1999 based on a finding of jury misconduct, including a juror telling fellow jurors of a dream about Ford Broncos killing their children.
But in its 37-page ruling Friday, the three-judge panel in Fresno said there was no proof the jury had failed to decide the case on its merits. And in scathing language, the appeals court compared Ford’s actions in putting an unsafe vehicle on the road to involuntary manslaughter.
A Ford lawyer, calling the ruling “extreme and unconstitutional,” said the company would seek a rehearing and, if that fails, would appeal to the state Supreme Court. “The Court of Appeal decision is patently wrong and does a grave injustice to Ford,” attorney Theodore J. Boutrous said.
The case was brought by Juan, Evangelina and Maria Romo, siblings who survived the 1993 crash on Interstate 5 near Turlock that killed their parents, Ramon, 39, and Salustia, 40, and their brother Ramiro, 18.
Juan Romo, then 19, was driving the Bronco when another vehicle veered as he was passing it, causing him to swerve. The Bronco flipped, and though wearing seat belts, his parents and brother died when the roof smashed, according to evidence at trial.
The ’78 Bronco had a metal roof above the front seat but a detachable fiberglass roof in back. According to evidence in the case, Ford considered adding a roll bar and metal reinforcement to the fiberglass section but did not do so in its rush to get the vehicle to market.
Ford later modified the roof but did not recall the earlier models. Plaintiffs argued this was particularly careless because the Bronco, like other sport utilities, is more prone to roll over because of its top-heavy design.
In July 1999, the jury in Stanislaus County Superior Court found the vehicle was defective and Ford guiilty of despicable conduct. The jury awarded more than $4.9 million in compensatory damages and $290 million in punitive damages.
The verdict came less than a week after a Los Angeles jury awarded a record $4.9 billion--later pared to $1.2 billion--to six people who were seriously burned when their Chevrolet Malibu’s fuel tank exploded in a rear-end crash.
But in September 1999, Superior Court Judge Roger M. Beauchesne ordered a new trial on punitive damages in the Romo case, saying the jury’s deliberations had been “infested with passion and prejudice.”
In one incident cited by the judge, a juror discussed and erroneously quoted former Ford President Lee Iacocca as saying Ford would rather pay settlements than fix unsafe cars.
Beauchesne also cited a juror for telling fellow jurors of a “morbid nightmare ...in which her child and the other jurors’ children were killed by a repeatedly rolling-over Bronco while Ford attorneys and witnesses, armed with guns, mockingly chanted, ‘Where’s the proof? Where’s the proof?’ ”
But the appeals court said that jurors were repeatedly admonished by Beauchesne and the juror foreman to decide the case on the law, and that there was no proof they had failed to do so.
The appeals court also rejected Ford’s claims that there had been no evidence on which to base punitive damages.
“We think it obvious that putting on the market a motor vehicle with a known propensity to roll over and, while given the vehicle the appearance of sturdiness, consciously deciding not to provide adequate crush protection to properly belted passengers ... constitutes despicable conduct,” the court said. “Such corporate conduct can constitute involuntary manslaughter.”
The appeals court also brushed aside arguments that the amount of punitive damages was excessive, saying that Ford “ is a huge company with enormous monetary resources” and that $290 million “is ... nine days of its profits at the time of trial.”
The Romos’ attorney, Joseph W. Carcione Jr., said he was “very gratified” by the decision.
Whether stronger roofs should be required on vehicles is the subject of fierce debate between consumer groups and auto makers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is considering beefing up its 30-year-old roof strength standard. Auto makers are resisting, saying the standard is adequate.
