FORD MOTOR COMPANY V. GONZALEZ 9 S.W.3d 195 (1999) CASE BRIEF

FORD MOTOR COMPANY V. GONZALEZ

9 S.W.3d 195 (1999)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Ford (D) appealed a judgment for Gonzalez (P) which held that P did not have to show specifically how the vehicle became defective.

FACTS: P purchased a new Ford Escort and over the next several months noticed excessive wear on the outer part of the right front tire. None of the other three tires on the vehicle exhibited unusual or uneven wear. P returned to the dealer to have the car's front end checked. The adjustment held for a time but the problem returned. P returned to the dealership several more times. P was reassured after extensive discussions that 'the problem would be corrected.' The mechanic next noted that the ball joint tie rod ends were worn and loose. He replaced them, reset the toe-in, and rotated the tires. When the uneven wear on the right front tire reoccurred, P took the car to Sears Automotive Center for another realignment. The uneven wear problem continued. P returned to the Ford dealership where the mechanic again adjusted the toe-in. Driving southward on Highway 281 at approximately 58 miles per hour, P testified that the steering wheel suddenly jerked violently in his hands, the Escort swerved to the right, onto the shoulder, then as he steered back onto the pavement, it rolled over five times. A witness noticed the Escort approaching in a normal manner, then the right front wheel wobbled and leaned to the right. The left front tire was straight, but the right front tire was leaning in the two o'clock position. He could see P fight with the steering wheel as the car approached the shoulder. When the car returned to the pavement, it rolled over. The witness reported to the investigating officer, Trooper Caro, that a visible problem with the right front wheel occurred before P lost control of the Escort. The eye-witness account was consistent with the investigation of the tire tracks, gouge marks, and other evidence at the crash site. The Escort was unavailable for inspection by either party. P sued D in product liability. The jury viewed photographs of the right front wheel and the suspension assembly taken after the accident which show that the right front MacPherson strut was disconnected from the wheel assembly. D's accident reconstructionist, Dr. Martinez, testified that the cause of the accident actually lay with P. Calculating that Gonzalez was traveling approximately 70 miles per hour, he made a sharp steer to the right causing the Escort to go off the road, and then a sharp left steer to get back on the pavement which ultimately sent him into the roll. The jury found D liable for manufacturing defect, marketing defect, and negligence. Comparative negligence findings were assessed at 80% liability to D and 20% against P. Based on this verdict, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Navin for $249,000.00 and in favor of Gonzalez for $361,400 plus pre- and post-judgment interest. D appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner