Product Liability - Written by Jere Beasley on Monday, August 11, 2008 14:44 - 0 Comments
Appellate Court Refuses To Reduce Jury Verdict
A California state appellate court has refused to alter or reduce an earlier decision to award $82.6 million in damages to a paraplegic who claimed faulty design caused her car to crash. The decision by San Diego’s Court of Appeals for the Fourth District came after the U.S. Supreme Court had ordered the state court to reconsider its original ruling. In that decision, the nation’s High Court held last year that jurors cannot punish defendants for harm to third parties when determining punitive damages.
Jurors in the case originally awarded Benetta Buell-Wilson more than $368 million in damages, with $246 million being punitive damages, against Ford Motor Co. In 2006, the Fourth District reduced the total award to $82.6 million, with $55 million consisting of punitive damages. This latest ruling affirmed that award, with the three justices unanimously saying there was nothing in the Philip Morris decision that warranted a change in their judgment. The justices wrote:
Based on our review of the record, plaintiffs’ counsel was not asking the jury to punish Ford for harm done to third parties. Rather, counsel was discussing the repeated nature of Ford’s actions in arguing the reprehensibility of Ford’s conduct. That argument was entirely proper and did not create a ’significant risk’ the jury would punish Ford for injuries to third parties.
Buell-Wilson, a mother of two, was injured on January 19, 2002, when her 1997 Ford Explorer fishtailed as she tried to avoid a metal object and rolled over four times before coming to rest on its roof. The justices had found Ford’s conduct reprehensible on the first appeal. The California Supreme Court denied review, but the U.S. Supreme Court took the case and remanded it back to the Fourth District for further review.
In its latest ruling, the California appeals court listed several reasons why the High Court’s opinion in Philip Morris doesn’t compel a reversal or further reduction:
- The court said Ford had submitted misleading jury instructions on third-party harm at trial;
Ford didn’t object in a timely manner to Buell-Wilson’s closing arguments during the punitive damages phase; - Ford hadn’t requested a limiting instruction during the trial’s liability phase and didn’t raise instructional error on appeal.
- Ford plans to appeal. Jerome Falk Jr., who is with the law firm of Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin, in San Francisco, represented Ms. Buell-Wilson and her husband. He believes the appellate court was correct to stand its ground, observing:
It will be interesting to see what happens if the U.S. Supreme Court again takes the case for review. Regardless, it is refreshing to see a state court do the right thing on the issue of corporate wrongdoing and punitive damages.
Source: The Recorder
- Favorite Bible verses
- Medical Device Legislation Introduced in Congress
- Pursuing a humble heart
- Favorite Bible verses
- A report on the medical devices legislation
- President Obama calls for new consumer protections
- Joan Claybrook honored in Washington
- Complaint filed against Arkansas nursing home
- Lawsuit filed in Geo Tracker rollover death case
- Richard Scrushy is held to be responsible for Health South fraud
- Exxon ordered to pay $507.5 million for 1989 Alaska oil spill
- Court upholds settlement in asbestos lawsuits
- Supreme Court rules against Massey Unit in judicial bias case
- Recent decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court
- GOP lawmakers warned by ALFA
- Thank you for the beautiful and encouraging Bible verses. Think I will share th...
- This is a very nice article,may the good Lord continue to bless you. Pls I would...
- It was such a pleasure to come across your web site while searching for informat...
- I just want to thank you for all the hard work your firm has done. I'm am so hap...
- As a delegate to the State-wide Mock Constitutional Convention and a member of t...
- Why is no one looking at the actual cost to build the property ? Comparing it to...
- Thank you for your testimony, in an adversarial world. I always enjoy receiving...
- I don't Know about the other cases, but I know that the women who sued Mcdonalds...
- Beasley Allen
- Jere Beasley Report
- Extreme Montgomery
- Leaking Storage Tank
- Coal Ash Spill
- Personal Injury Lawyer
- Yamaha Rhino Lawyer
- Mesothelioma Blog
- Mesothelioma Lawyer
- Nursing Home Abuse
- Employee Rights
- Unum Provident Denied Disability
- Morgan Keegan Investment Fraud
- Pain Pumps
- Fosamax and ONJ
- Paxil and Pregnancy
- Heparin Recall
- Ortho Evra and Blood Clots
- Vytorin Cancer
- Gadolinium and NSF
- HRT and Breast Cancer
- Avandia and Heart Attacks
- Steven Johnson Syndrome (SJS)
- Fleet Attorney
- Kugel Hernia Patch Recall
- Medtronic Heart Lead Recall
- Digitek Recall
- Chantix Recall
- Reglan Lawyer
- Trasylol Recall
Recent Settlements - Jul 1, 2009 7:20 - 0 Comments
Serious eye injury case settled in Pike County
More In Recent Settlements
- Greg Allen settles case with Ford Motor Company
- Settlement of roof crush case
- Settlement of Ford Explorer and Firestone tire case
- Insurance Fraud Settlement Involving Liberty Life Insurance Co.
- ALFA Found Guilty Of Insurance Fraud
Product Liability - Jul 1, 2009 7:19 - 0 Comments
The single vehicle accident: a series highlighting often overlooked product claims
More In Product Liability
- Illinois jury returns $2 million asbestos injury verdict
- Three teens killed and six hurt in SUV rollover
- Our clients are examples of the hardest hit victims of the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies
- IIHS research on child seats is revealing
- NHTSA releases new roof crush standard
Leave a Reply