Mansur v. Ford Motor Co.
129 Cal. Rptr. 3d 200
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Mohammad Mansur and Omeedeh Mansur’s family sued Ford Motor Company and Drew Ford for strict product liability, negligence, and breach of warranty after Omeedeh died in a rollover of a 1996 Ford Explorer while traveling with her family; the jury sided with Ford and Drew Ford, and the trial court awarded them about $432,968 in costs.
- The rollover left Omeedeh crushed under the roof; the roof crushed into the passenger space, with evidence that the survival space was compromised and Omeedeh’s head and neck were injured as the roof collapsed.
- Engineering and biomechanical expert testimony described roof buckling, A- and B-pillar failure, and seatbelt retractor issues as contributing to Omeedeh’s injuries, and noted potential improvements (stronger roof, expanded pillar reinforcements, dual pretensioners, integrated seat designs).
- Ford moved in limine to keep the consumer expectations test (CACI No. 1203) out of the case, arguing complex rollover physics and restraint systems exceed lay understanding; the court granted the motion, tentatively invoking Pruitt to support reserving the consumer expectations test.
- Plaintiffs appealed, challenging the consumer expectations instruction ruling, the dismissal of Juror No. 10 for voir dire influence, and several evidentiary rulings related to UN46/UNI05 model evidence and deposition handling; the appellate court affirmed the judgment.
- The court concluded that, for consumer expectations, the evidence did not establish the necessary objective product features in a way lay jurors could evaluate, and thus denied the instruction; it also upheld the juror dismissal as a demonstrable reality of impaired impartiality, and addressed the trial court’s handling of evidentiary motions and deposition edits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consumer expectations instruction should have been given | Plaintiffs argued for CACI No. 1203. | Ford argued complex rollover design requires expert proof; consumer expectations not appropriate. | Denied; consumer expectations instruction not warranted. |
| Whether Juror No. 10 was properly dismissed | Plaintiffs claimed lack of bias evidence; dismissal was overbroad. | Ford argued juror demonstrated inability to follow admonitions and be impartial. | Affirmed; there was a demonstrable reality of inability to perform duties. |
| Whether evidentiary rulings (UN46/UNI05, deposition content) were proper | Plaintiffs claimed UN46/UNI05 relevance; challenged deposition evidence. | Ford argued trial court properly limited and controlled admissibility; some arguments raised too late. | Affirmed; evidentiary rulings within discretion and not reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Soule v. General Motors Corp., 8 Cal.4th 548 (Cal. Supreme Ct. 1994) (consumer expectations limits and expert testimony constraints for design defect)
- Campbell v. General Motors, 32 Cal.3d 112 (Cal. Supreme Ct. 1982) (consumer expectations guidance and sufficiency of evidence for design defect)
- Saller v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc., 187 Cal.App.4th 1220 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2010) (two theories of design defect; consumer expectations vs. risk/benefit)
- McCabe v. American Honda Motor Co., 100 Cal.App.4th 1111 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2002) (nonexpert evidence on objective features can support design defect under consumer expectations in certain cases)
- Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co., 141 Cal.App.4th 525 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2006) (evidence of prior model problems; limits of using expert testimony for consumer expectations)
- Pruitt v. General Motors Corp., 72 Cal.App.4th 1480 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1999) (consumer expectations reserved for cases within ordinary consumer experience)
- People v. Williams, 25 Cal.4th 441 (Cal. Supreme Ct. 2001) (abuse of discretion standard in reviewing juror dismissal)