Ford Motor Co. v. Wiles
353 S.W.3d 198
Tex. App.2011Background
- This is a design defect products liability case arising from a Ford Explorer rollover after a left-rear tire delaminated, killing Diane Wiles.
- The Wiles family sued Ford, Michelin, and Procare Automotive Solution; the jury found no tire defect but found a design defect in the vehicle’s handling and allocated fault among Jim Wiles, Diane Wiles, and Ford.
- The trial court entered judgment for the Wileses for actual damages of about $7.37 million plus interest.
- Ford challenged the verdict on multiple grounds, including the sufficiency of evidence of a safer alternative design.
- The Texas intermediate appellate court held the evidence did not prove a safer alternative design would have prevented the accident.
- The court reversed and rendered judgment that the Wileses take nothing against Ford.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design defect evidence sufficiency | Wileses argue a design defect existed due to trampoline/skate; safer alternative could have prevented. | Ford contends Renfroe’s testimony is conclusory and lacks basis to prove a feasible alternative design. | Evidence legally insufficient; no probative safer design evidence. |
| Jury size error on 12-person requirement | N/A | N/A | Not reached |
| Jury instructions issue on percentage of responsibility | N/A | N/A | Not reached |
| Damages award for Diane Wiles' death | N/A | N/A | Not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (reasonable evidence standard for legal sufficiency)
- Morris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 334 S.W.3d 838 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2011) (evidence sufficiency framework)
- Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng’rs & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1998) (evidence standard; strict view on legally sufficient evidence)
- Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc., 650 S.W.2d 61 (Tex. 1983) (evidence not to be based on mere guess or suspicion)
- Burrow v. Arce, 997 S.W.2d 229 (Tex. 1999) (avoid ipse dixit or bare conclusions from experts)
- Pollock, 284 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2009) (bar on conclusory expert testimony supporting judgment)