Parr, J. v. Ford Motor Company
109 A.3d 682
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- On July 21, 2009 a 2001 Ford Excursion owned by Joseph and April Parr rolled down an embankment after being struck by another vehicle; several occupants were injured, including April (quadriplegic) and daughter Samantha (severe head and internal injuries).
- Plaintiffs sued Ford Motor Company and related dealers alleging defective roof design and crashworthiness (strict products liability and negligence), claiming roof crush caused the severe injuries.
- Ford defended with a "diving/torso augmentation" theory: occupants’ motions during the rollover (diving) and continued torso momentum (torso augmentation) — not roof collapse — caused the injuries.
- The Excursion was released to the Parrs’ insurer shortly after the accident, sold, and later destroyed; parties stipulated the vehicle was unavailable for post-accident forensic inspection.
- At trial the jury found Ford not liable, concluding the Parrs did not prove a defective roof design or negligent design; the jury therefore did not reach causation or damages.
- The trial court denied post-trial relief; the Superior Court affirmed after considering four appellate evidentiary challenges by the Parrs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Preclude Ford’s diving/torso-augmentation theory (Motion in Limine No.1) | NHTSA’s 2009 FMVSS 216 Final Rule established that roof crush, not diving/torso augmentation, causes head/neck injuries in belted rollover occupants, so Ford should be barred from presenting that theory. | The Final Rule did not categorically displace diving/torso augmentation; alternative theories remain scientifically debated and are proper jury issues. | Denied. Court allowed Ford to present diving/torso augmentation; NHTSA rule did not categorically exclude that theory. |
| 2. Exclude post-2001 NHTSA rulemaking and FMVSS 216 (Motion in Limine No.3) | Post-2001 rulemaking is relevant to causation and to impeach Ford’s experts; NHTSA’s conclusions should be admissible. | Post-manufacture standards are irrelevant to whether the 2001 vehicle was defective when made and risk confusing/ prejudicing the jury. | Granted in part. Post-2001 rulemaking (2005–2009) excluded as evidence of defect or to prove causation; trial court properly limited this evidence. |
| 3. Admit statistical/epidemiological compilations (Motion in Limine No.9) | Studies (NHTSA, IIHS, FARS, NASS) show higher rollover fatalities/rates for Excursions and are probative to causation/defect. | The compilations aggregate dissimilar accidents/vehicles and lack required "substantial similarity" to this accident; hearsay and prejudicial. | Granted. Trial court properly excluded the statistics because plaintiffs failed to show the underlying accidents were substantially similar. |
| 4. Preclude spoliation evidence and inference (Motion in Limine No.10) | Ford suffered no prejudice from vehicle destruction because neither party’s experts examined it; spoliation instruction was improper. | Parrs destroyed the vehicle after retaining counsel and without notifying Ford, prejudicing Ford’s ability to inspect; permissive adverse inference is an appropriate, lesser sanction. | Denied. Court allowed spoliation evidence and gave a permissive adverse-inference jury instruction; sanction was within discretion given fault and prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb v. Zern, 220 A.2d 858 (Pa. 1966) (adoption of Restatement (Second) § 402A — product liability foundation)
- Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014) (Pennsylvania confirms Second Restatement framework for products liability)
- Kupetz v. Deere & Co., 644 A.2d 1213 (Pa. Super. 1994) (recognition and definition of crashworthiness doctrine)
- McCown v. Int’l Harvester Co., 342 A.2d 381 (Pa. 1975) (manufacturer liability for defects that increase injury severity)
- Duchess v. Langston Corp., 769 A.2d 1131 (Pa. 2001) (product evaluated at time of distribution; post-sale standards generally not evidence of defect)
- Hutchinson v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., 876 A.2d 978 (Pa. Super. 2005) (statistical compilations/ expert reports constitute other-accident evidence and must satisfy substantial similarity)
- Blumer v. Ford Motor Co., 20 A.3d 1222 (Pa. Super. 2011) (prior accident evidence admissible only if sufficiently similar)
- Schroeder v. Commonwealth, Dep’t of Transp., 710 A.2d 23 (Pa. 1998) (spoliation remedies; adverse inference jury instruction as permissible sanction)
- Mount Olivet Tabernacle Church v. Edwin L. Wiegand Division, 781 A.2d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2001) (factors for spoliation sanctions: fault, prejudice, lesser sanctions)