Court Opinion

ID: 9740376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:33:56.079727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:17.867680
License: Public Domain

RILEY, Judge,
dissenting with separate opinion.
I respectfully dissent from the majority's decision to reverse the jury's verdict on the Estate's product negligence claim against Ford and TRW. The majority opines that the Estate failed to present sufficient evidence that Ford or TRW breached their duty of reasonable care. We note that upon review of a jury verdict, we will neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses, but will examine the evidence most favorable to the appellee and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Beall v. Mooring Tax Asset Group, 813 N.E.2d 778, 781 (Ind.Ct.App.2004).
As recognized by the majority, Indiana's Product Liability Act imposes liability upon sellers of a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to any user or consumer. Ford Motor Co. v. Rushford, 868 N.E.2d 806, 809 (Ind.2007). The Act governs actions brought by a user or consumer against a manufacturer or seller for physical harm caused by a product, regardless of the substantive legal theory or theories upon which the action is brought. Id. Proceeding under a negli-genee theory, the Estate was required to prove that: (1) Ford and TRW owed a duty to Moore; (2) Ford and TRW breached that duty; and (8) Moore's injury was proximately caused by the breach. See id. at 810. Ford and TRW concede they had a duty of care towards Moore, but contest the breach of duty and resulting injury. In its analysis, the majority focuses on the doctrine of crashworthiness and acknowledges that "defectiveness" under the doctrine involves a product that failed to provide the consumer with reasonable protection under the cireum-stances surrounding a particular accident. See p. 428 (quoting Miller v. Todd, 551 N.E.2d 1139, 1143).
Looking at the evidence most favorable to the Estate, the Estate's expert, mechanical engineer Steven Meyer (Meyer), testified that Moore's 1997 Ford Explorer had a defective seatbelt restraint system which allowed "the belt to become unlocked during the rollover portion of a rollover." (Transeript p. 579). Because Moore's seatbelt became unlocked, it spooled out, causing Moore's ejection from the vehicle. Specifically, Meyer indicated that four conditions contributed to the intermittent release of the seatbelt's webbing: (1) sensor in the ball and eup retractor design was in neutral and the ball was at the bottom of the cup; (2) tension was relieved; (8) the belt rewound to allow the lock bar to fall out; and (4) tension was reapplied to extract significant belt. These four conditions occurred and unlocked Moore's belt "during the roll, most probably when there were vertically directed accelerations similar to those wheels down, slam down." (Tr. p. 1896). Any of the three rollovers of Moore's car had "to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty" a "vertically based impact." (Tr. p. 1898). Overall, Meyer indicated that in the fifteen years that he has been studying rollover crashes, he had *434never seen a full ejection by a belted occupant without any belt failure.
Nevertheless, in order to have a successful negligence claim under the doctrine of crashworthiness, the Estate, as recognized by the majority, also has to demonstrate that a "feasible, safer, more practicable product design would have afforded better protection" to Moore. See p. 424 (quoting Miller, 551 N.E.2d at 1143; Prices v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 31 F.3d 543, 546 (7th Cir.1994)). In order to reach its conclusion that the Estate failed this burden, the majority engages in a patent exercise of reweighing the evidence and Meyer's credibility.
The case law reflects that it is sufficient that the plaintiff proffers a demonstrably better design in order to show that the defendant was negligent in selecting and implementing an inferior design. See, e.g., Bammerlin v. Navistar Int'l Trans. Corp., 30 F.3d 898 901 (7th Cir.1994); Whitted v. Gen. Motors Corp., 58 F.3d 1200, 1206 (7th Cir.1995). This proposed design must be supported by reliable data, such as testing, studies, or statistics to show the feasibility of the alternative design. Rogers v. Ford Motor Co., 952 F.Supp. 606, 615 (N.D.Ind.1997). Therefore, a suggestion to improve upon the current design, supported by data that indicate the improved design's superiority and feasibility would satisfy the current case law. Looking at the evidence in the light most favorably to the Estate, I believe this burden of proof was met.
Although the Estate's expert advanced two alternative designs-a cinching latch plate and pretensioners-his testimony focused mainly on the use of pretensioners as a supplement to improve upon the conventional seatbelt design. The purpose of a pretensioner is to eliminate any slack that might be present in the seatbelt's restraint system and enhance the overall performance of the system as a whole. To support Meyer's proposed alternative design, the Estate introduced Exhibit 199 which established that in 1996, prior to the building of Moore's 1997 Ford Explorer, TRW recommended Ford in writing to use pretensioners to address the risk that a "conventional retractor can have intermittent release of webbing during rollover." TRW's report included statistical data reflecting that light trucks are twice as likely to roll over as passenger cars and that less pre-crash belt slack and higher belt angles produce significant reductions in occupant vertical excursions. It concluded that a pretensioner would "enhance restraint during all violent crashes and particularly in rollover. Injury will be significantly less during rollover with the elimination of slack and the improved geometry." (Exh. 199) (emphasis added).
In addition, the Estate introduced two supplemental exhibits written by Ford in furtherance of the Estate's presentation on pretensioners: Exhibit 17, dated September 25, 1992, and Exhibit 18, dated November 19, 1998. Exhibit 17 indicates that "NAAO Car Product Development and NAAO Light Truck Product Development have designated pretensioners as a technology/feature want on several NAAO vehicles beginning in 1996. Several foreign manufacturers are providing pretensioners for their U.S. market for 1992. Consumer Reports presents pretensioners on these vehicles as an improved safety feature." In turn, Exhibit 18 includes empirical data from tests comparing seatbelt slack resulting from baseline, conventional belts versus slack resulting from conventional re-tractors enhanced with a pretensioner and shows that pretensioners outperform the conventional ball and eup retractor. The document calculates the projected total incremental cost of installing pretensioners to be thirty-five dollars per vehicle. As such, relying on all this available empirical *435evidence, Meyer concluded that prior to building Moore's vehicle in 1997, Ford had a "feasible, technologically feasible, economically feasible pretensioner design" in production. (Tr. p. 596).
In sum, based upon the standard of review and the evidence before me, I find that the Estate presented sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude that a safer and feasible alternative to the conventional seatbelt was available that would have cost-effectively improved aggregate safety in all types of crashes.
ORDER
Appellee Sally Moore, Personal Representative of the Estate of Daniel A. Moore, by counsel, has filed a Motion to Publish Memorandum Decision. Appellees Ford Motor company and TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc., by counsel, have each filed responses in. opposition to Appellee's Motion to Publish Memorandum Decision.
Having reviewed the matter, the Court FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
1. Appellee's Motion to Publish Memorandum Decision is GRANTED. This Court's opinion handed down in this cause on March 13, 2009, marked Memorandum Decision, Not for Publication is now ORDERED PUBLISHED.
RILEY, BAILEY, BRADFORD, JJ., concur.