Verdicts Settlements

CASE DESCRIPTION:

Plaintiff Darla F. was driving her motorcycle home from work on the northbound 57 freeway in the car pool lane, traveling at about 60 to 65 miles per hour. About four to five car lengths behind her was an Isuzu gardening truck. Suddenly and without warning, a Ford F-350 truck, of which the driver had lost control, entered the carpool lane across a double yellow lane directly in front of her. Mrs. F. struck the F-350 and landed near the center median. Moments later, the Isuzu gardening truck also struck the Ford F-350 at approximately 40 miles per hour.

RESULT:$2,601,058 jury verdict

On Wednesday May 9, 2007, Plaintiff Darla F. was driving her motorcycle home from work on the northbound 57 freeway in the car pool lane. Mrs. F. was traveling at a speed between 60 to 65 miles per hour, and was followed by an Isuzu gardening truck four to five car lengths behind her. A 2004 Ford F-350 truck, owned by HOL Construction Inc. and driven by its employee, Jose Barajas, was also proceeding in the northbound 57 in the no. 4, or “slow," lane heading back toward HOL’s vehicle yard. The Ford F-350 truck crossed all four lanes of northbound traffic and entered the carpool lane across a double yellow lane directly in front of Mrs. F.’s path of travel. As a result, Mrs. F. struck the F-350 near the driver’s door, and landed near the center median. Moments later, the Isuzu gardening truck also struck the Ford F-350 in a broadside/sideswipe fashion at approximately 40 miles per hour.

At the scene, Barajas claimed the reason he crossed the northbound lanes and entered the carpool lane was that the steering of the Ford F-350 truck failed after the vehicle began violently shuddering. After the loss of steering, Barajas claimed that the truck began to drift to the left and there was nothing he could do to prevent this movement. The CHP inspected the Ford F-350 following the collision and noted that several components of the steering mechanism were broken.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS RE: LIABILITY:

Subsequent inspection of the Ford F-350 truck indicated that all the broken parts of the steering mechanism observed by the CHP, save one, were the result of the subsequent broadside collision between the Ford F-350 and the Isuzu gardening truck. One component of the steering mechanism, the sector steering shaft, showed significant fatigue cracking that pre-existed the collision. Plaintiffs’ experts concluded that this sector steering shaft failed prior to the collision with the Isuzu. Plaintiffs’ experts further determined that the sector shaft was not manufactured in accord with Ford specifications in that the part was not sufficiently hard. This lack of required hardness, combined with impurities in the metal itself, allowed numerous fatigue fractures to develop over the two year work life of the 2004 Ford F-350 vehicle.

At trial, Plaintiffs argued that liability was determined by the jurors’ view of the testimony of Barajas. If the jury believed Ford's contention that Barajas made up the story regarding the loss of steering and merely made an unsafe lane change, then Barajas and HOL were solely liable. If the jury believed there was a loss of steering, then the cause of the steering loss was a manufacturing defect in the Ford sector shaft which, over time, became greatly fatigued and eventually failed in use. Plaintiffs further argued that Barajas was negligent in failing to stop his vehicle prior to entering the carpool lane, when he had the physical ability to do so.

CONTENTIONS OF DEFENDANT, FORD MOTOR COMPANY:

Ford contended that the Barajas’ claim of a loss of steering was an after-the-fact story created by Barajas after he noted that the steering mechanism was damaged after the collision with the Isuzu. Ford maintained Barajas wanted to disguise the fact that he had made an unsafe and illegal lane change into the carpool lane since he was on probation following multiple felony convictions and wanted to avoid further trouble with the law.

Ford argued that following a loss of steering the vehicle would go straight, and not left as claimed by Barajas. Furthermore, Barajas could not have navigated four lanes of traffic during rush hour conditions without providing steering input along the way. In addition, even in the fatigued state noted after the collision, the sector steering shaft was still intact and could not have broken while going straight since no forces were generated on the shaft under those driving conditions. Therefore, Ford contended that the shaft broke when the Isuzu broadsided the Ford following Mrs. F.’s injuries. Also, Barajas had ample time to stop his vehicle prior to entering the carpool lane, and his failure to do so was the primary cause of the collision with Mrs F.’s motorcycle.

Ford further argued that the fatigued condition of the sector shaft was not due to any manufacturing defect. Instead, the sector shaft was initially damaged in a previous, unreported, accident involving the F-350 during one of HOL’s construction projects. This accident started the sector shaft fatigue cracks that grew over time. Ford contended that the sector shaft met all Ford specifications, and that there were no other documented failures of this sector shaft due to fatigue in the history of the Ford F-series product line.

Ford also argued that Mrs. F. was able to see the Ford F-350 heading in her direction sufficiently ahead of time that she should have been able to stop her motorcycle prior to colliding with the Ford F-350.

CONTENTIONS OF DEFENDANT, BARAJAS/HOL CONSTRUCTION:

Barajas/HOL claimed that sole responsibility for the collision was due to the failure of the steering of the Ford F-350 vehicle. HOL’s experts conceded that the steering components other than the sector shaft were broken during the collision with the Isuzu, but that the sector shaft failed prior to the collision due to the progression of the fatigue cracks.

Barajas indicated the reason he did not bring his vehicle to a stop before the carpool lane was that he wanted to get out of the middle of the freeway to preserve his personal safety. Also, every time he braked the vehicle, it would pull to the left and he was afraid of the trailer jack-knifing as a result. Therefore, Barajas’s failure to bring the Ford vehicle to a stop was a reasonable response to an emergency situation not of his own making. Furthermore, Barajas claimed that both Mrs. F. and the Isuzu truck had plenty of time to stop their vehicles prior to colliding with the Ford truck in the carpool lane. Barrajas’ counsel, however, did not argue that Plaintiff was contributorily negligent.

INJURIES: Pelvis fracture requiring internal fixation, ankle fracture involving internal fixation, leg fracture, kidney damage, multiple spinous process fractures. Plaintiff Darla F. subsequently developed a chronic pain syndrome. Plaintiff Kevin F. brought a claim for loss of consortium.

FINAL RESULT:

3 MacArthur Place, Ste 800
Santa Ana, California, 92707
Toll Free: 866-434-1424