Stokes v. Ford Motor Co.
300 P.3d 648
Mont.2013Background
- Stokes, as personal representative, sues Ford and Overland for Carter’s death in a 2002.5 Ford Explorer; collision occurred after Durham turned left in front of Carter at highway speed.
- Carter’s Explorer rolled five times; Carter died, passenger survived.
- Stokes claims safer alternative designs (SCS) were feasible and could have prevented harm.
- Ford and Overland defended that the vehicle was safe without SCS; they later entered an indemnity agreement.
- Jury found Durham liable in negligence; Ford and Overland were not liable; district court entered judgment; sanctions and evidentiary disputes were pursued on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default judgment on liability was proper sanction | Stokes argues late discovery warrants default | Ford contends no willful abuse; sanction unwarranted | No abuse of discretion; default judgment not warranted |
| Whether exclusion of other-incidents evidence was proper | Stokes needed other incidents to show notice | Ford required substantial similarity foundation | Exclusion affirmed due to lack of foundation for substantial similarity |
| Whether foreign and 2007 U.S. standardization evidence was proper | Stokes sought to impeach Ford’s consumer-demand narrative | Standardization evidence irrelevant or prejudicial; Rule 407 applied | District court rulings did not constitute reversible error |
| Whether indemnity agreement evidence and questioning were properly handled | Agreement shows bias and unity of defense | Limited use appropriate; no prejudice shown | No reversible error in handling or limiting use of indemnity agreement |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. State, 331 Mont. 231 (2006 MT 43) (default sanction appropriate for willful discovery abuse)
- Estate of Willson v. Addison, 361 Mont. 269 (2011 MT 179) (inadvertent destruction not willful discovery violation)
- Kraft v. High Country Motors, Inc., 276 P.3d 908 (2012 MT 83) (abuse of discretion standard for discovery sanctions)
- Richardson v. State (alternate citation), 130 P.3d 634 (2005 MT) (blatant and systemic discovery abuse justified default)
- Krueger v. General Motors Corp., 783 P.2d 1340 (1989 MT) (admissibility of other accidents depends on substantial similarity)
- Tacke v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 713 P.2d 527 (1986 MT) (admission of similar accidents requires careful balancing of similarities)
- Kuiper v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 673 P.2d 1208 (1983 MT) (substantial similarity governs admissibility of other incidents)