Sandra Gail Davis v. Ford Motor Co.
128 F.3d 631
8th Cir.
1997
Check Treatment

*2 ble” and . danger. “unreasonable” risk of McMILLIAN, Before BRIGHT and expert also testified that Ford knew vehicle MURPHY, Judges. Circuit . commonly rely owners exclusively on the BRIGHT, Judge. park mechanism to hold their vehicles in place. Ford’s documents also revealed that (“Davis”) Sandra Gail Davis "sustained se- 1,547 there reported were park” “roll in inci- injuries vere when her Explorer 1991 Ford dents vehicles with A4LD transmissions. vehicle rolled leg, over her notwithstanding engineers Ford’s Ford, acknowledged that. its park transmission position. investigation after the began in contin- against her claim Company Ford Motor ued to manufacture and sell vehicles with the (“Ford”), awarded her million in defective transmissions until October 1991. verdict. Ford admitted the vehicle was defective and the Ford, defect caused the acci- although admitting liability, submit- dent, but it negligence asserted Davis’ in ted ignored evidence that Davis four warn- disregarding warnings to set parking her ings to parking set. brake parking when brake contributed to the accident and that her vehicle. argued Ford further that Davis 'cross-appeal 1. Davis filed a but chose not to cross-appeal does not discuss the filed Davis argue Therefore, cross-appeal. her opinion this and it is deemed dismissed. any injuries or dam- for the occurrence and strength range improved could it, apportion respon- ages resulting from aggressive done leg had she motion of her sibility Ford].” between Ford’s [Davis in 1993 to sent Davis therapy. Ford physical interrogatory Denver, proposed fourth would have ad- surgeon in who orthopedic amount then asked the to state the therapy that Davis physical aggressive vised damages compensate which would Davis for pursue. did not *3 App. by Ford. at 30A-32A. caused special a verdict requested Ford request court denied Ford’s Ford The district Davis and fault between would allocate court in- special, for a verdict. The district damages. Ford’s Davis’ total and assess jury principles compar- on the structed the of Interrogatory 2 have asked would Proposed applicable in Arkansas.' Arkan- preponderance ative fault as you from a jury find the “[d]o comparative whereby fault on sas uses modified negligence that there of the evidence nothing if Plaintiff, Davis would recover her fault is of Sandra Gail part the injuries equal greater to than Ford’s fault. The of her proximate cause which was jury general form submitted to the Proposed Interroga- verdict damages?” Ford’s questions regarding two the to included required “[u]s- have tory 3 would compensatory damages: claim for responsibility total represent to the ing 100% Company, in favor against Ford Motor we find Gail Davis 1. On the claims of Sandra of: Company Motor or Ford Gail Davis

Sandra Davis in the amount of: We, damages in favor of Sandra Gail jury, assess 2. the $- Miller, Practice and Proce- thur R. Federal 123.

Ford Add. at (1971)). dure: 2511 Civil

II. DISCUSSION any possible to show Ford has failed argues that the district court Ford to use a prejudice from the decision refusing to by its discretion submit abused com Specifically, although Ford verdict. to special Pursuant verdict. confusing, general verdict was plains that the 49, the of Civil Procedure deci Federal Rule form and the we conclude that the verdict special is vest sion whether to use verdict In were not unclear. addi jury instructions This discretion of district court. ed tion, closing argument Ford used during by appellate court has been seen the trial explain Arkan projector to further overhead See, ordinarily reviewable.” courts as “not principles. The comparative negligence sas’ F.2d 1020 e.g., Epperly, 896 Jarrett jury on Arkansas court instructed the district Indus., (6th Cir.1990); Inc. v. D.M. Lummus using Arkansas Model comparative fault (Fed.Cir.1988). 267, 273 Corp., E. 862 F.2d & Jury 2115. Instruction , au cited Eighth The Circuit has text-book complain the amount not about Ford does

thority that the decision to use fact, amount of com- In by interrogatories is of the award. accompanied substantially is damages awarded pensatory the unreviewable discretion committed to In by Davis. amount advanced Burlington less than judge.2 Flanigan v. the trial (8th likelihood, jury allocated Northern, this reflects the Inc., all Cir. 632 F.2d plaintiff. 1980) responsibility to the degree Ar- some Wright Alan & (quoting 9 Charles verdict, great defer- subject to use a ruling the decision to review on 2. Of course such review, Flanigan Upon judge appeal. court found Rule 49. under ence is afforded ruling. When this court reviews no error in the liability pre- Ford admitted and the evidence closing argument, spec- In Ford did not by damages exceeding ify any sented Davis showed damages. view reasonable million. Ford conceded its brief that light In arguments evidence and supported a finding evidence of at least presented by parties, both amount (Ford 20). against 51% fault it. Br. at damages awarded to Davis indicates the respects record in other indicates that plaintiffs reduced total dam- prejudice use of a verdict did not ages applying comparative negligence Ford. principles. order determine the amount of com- argues that the district court abused pensatory damages needed Davis to live its discretion overwhelming because there is injury, parties presented with her life .both support for the use of verdict inter plans. care plans The life care included rogatories allocating comparative fault care, medications, costs future medical .for *4 fault cases. v. See Skidmore Baltimore & , modalities, therapeutic durable medical (2d Co., Cir.), denied, O.R. 167 F.2d 54 cert. needs, care, supplies, support transpor- home 816, 34, 335 U.S. 69 S.Ct. 93 L.Ed. 371 tation, and architectural renovations but the (1948); 570, Rifkin, Russo 113 A.D.2d 497 plans dramatically differed in Dr. cost. Ter- N.Y.S.2d 41 Judge Frank in Skid- Winkler, ry physical a rehabilitation medicine general more called the verdict “as inscruta physician in certified the area of life care essentially mysterious ble and judg as the planning, presented plan a life care on behalf ment which issued from the ancient oracle of $2,411,941. that pre- totaled Ford Delphi.” 167 F.2d at 60. A New York court Rubano, plan by sented a life care Des that in discussing advantages spe Russo of a $1,618,207. presented totaled Ford also a cial verdict said: plan assumption based on the that Davis’ acceptability Whatever the of such deter- improved condition with therapy extensive so [general compli- minations in verdicts] less that longer Davis would no need a wheelchair times, complex cated in this era of issues employment. and could return to The cost fault, comparative necessity and $529,735. that for the plan third life care appellate provided bodies be with some testify Davis an economist that Davis’ jury’s illumination of the rationale has $240,857 earnings capacity lost would be quite been rendered In providing acute. on grade based women with tenth educations. illumination, special that verdict has present economist combined the value the advantage offering precise a more plan Winkler, of the life by care Dr. definition jury’s finding of the ... and it is bills, medical earnings capacity and lost for that appellate judiciary reason that the $2,528,- to find Davis’ total economic loss was legal and repeatedly commentators have suggested special that general verdicts or compensatory punitive With damages, interrogatories verdicts with be utilized in requested Davis to award her comparative fault cases. $6,002,099. closing argument, sug- Russo, (internal 497 N.Y.S.2d at 43 citations gested that million for omitted). compensatory damages was excessive comparing that amount budget to the recognize We many that courts advocate County $2,700,- Ouachita for 1997 which was special Nevertheless, the use of verdicts.3 require special 3. Several interrogatories states finding or no abuse of discretion in the use of a cases, statute, rule, verdicts in all either general court Hammerquist verdict. See v. Clarke's or Comparative Metal, decision. The Uniform Inc., 1319, Fault Act (9th Sheet 658 F.2d 1323 Cir. requires interrogatories special 1981) ("Mere verdicts unless contrary custom' to the does not parties agree general' all to a verdict. Three discretion.”); signal Dy- an abuse of Railroad general allow Henry states only verdicts. See namics, Co., 1506, Inc. v. A. Stucki 727 F.2d Deere, Comparative- Woods & Beth Fault 18:1 (Fed.Cir.1984) ("When 49, 1514-15 and if Rules (3d ed.1996). 51, Fed.R.Civ.P., repealed, are there recognized Other juries courts have the overwhelm- be room for the restriction of to a fact ing support special finding use of prohibition general verdicts while role and for ver- III. CONCLUSION argument. side to is another there Woods, leading Henry previously Judge prejudice in no to Ford The record shows attorney experi- and now trial Arkansas general these the use of the verdict. Under in the'Eastern judge' district enced federal circumstances, no abuse of discretion dem- Arkansas, in his treatise states District of general onstrated in the use of verdict comparative fault: Accordingly, here. we affirm. experi- trial thirty-five years of than More pure and modified

ence under both McMILLIAN, Judge, concurring. negligence, and comparative systems only separately to en- I concur. write on both having cases submitted I. circuit to courage judges this con- interrogatories have verdicts their discretion to submit exercise many eases the writer vinced eases, especially involv- in civil those verdicts Particularly preferable. verdict is ing comparative fault issues. As noted case. Juries two-party in the is this true R.R., v. Baltimore & O. 167 F.2d Skidmore verdict trouble with have less (2d Cir.1948) (Frank, J.), “the nearly It more interrogatories. with than power ... confers on the a vast their wishes. effectuates by loading it error and do mischief to commit Deere, beyond ability Comparative technical burdens far its Beth with Henry & Woods *5 confusing aggregating it in (3d ed.1996). perform, by § Fault 18:1 issues, segregating the and instead of Arkansas, are submit most cases secrecy mystery in the actual shrouding is true even This general verdicts.4 ted on Moreover, results of its deliberations.” claims, multiple parties, cross there are when ordinary general “when a returns Judge Woods describes and counterclaims. verdiet, power utterly to usually it has the in in federal court special verdicts concerning the use of ignore judge instructs it what rules, which, passage: legal power following the substantive controlled, generally it cannot be because use of verdicts Since the practical purposes, indistinguishable for all procedural, the federal interrogatories is ” (footnotes ‘right.’ at 57-58 omit- from a Id. them, regardless of state may courts use ted). se- Special would lessen the verdicts instance, For practice. inter- statutes crecy mystery as well as the threat compara- in used rogatories are sometimes jury nullification. Mississippi in the negligence cases tive courts, in state court. but never federal courts will rule the federal

As practice. In Arkansas where

follow local in widely used are also verdicts widely they are used practice,

state practice.

federal

Id. at 18:3. many

Special are valuable verdicts However, good exist to

cases. reasons cases. The some

use trial

decision is left to discretion Rule 49.

court under courts, leaves the deci- Arkansas patent types Until 4. Like federal trials. diets in or other general verdict to the use a sion whether to day, ... prohibition verdicts Hough v. Continen- of the trial court. discretion tal 21-22 fiat.”). by judicial accomplished be cannot Leasing Corp., 630 S.W.2d 275 Ark.