 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Garcia v. Brown11/24/2004
STEWART, J., concurs in result only. PEATROSS, J., concurs.
On May 25, 1996, David Garcia, plaintiff herein, and Kristen Brown were traveling from Jackson, Mississippi, to Dallas, Texas, through Louisiana on Interstate 20. Garcia was driving the 1989 Ford Escort owned by Kristen Brown. Kristen was sitting in the front passenger seat. Both were wearing seat belts. The accident giving rise to this lawsuit occurred near Tallulah, Louisiana. Garcia, westbound in the inside or far left lane going 65-70 MPH, crested an overpass and saw a burning vehicle on the opposite side of the interstate. As he slowed down, another westbound vehicle switched lanes in front of Garcia causing him to quickly turn left into the grass median separating I-20's east and westbound lanes. The Escort rotated clockwise, slid sideways, then rolled over twice, landing upright across the median. The driver's side roof of the Escort crushed inward 10 to 11 inches. Garcia suffered a spinal cord injury resulting in permanent quadriplegia. Kristen Brown suffered a shoulder injury from which she recovered. Because the Escort rotated, the passenger side was the lead side in the rollover and its roof buckled up rather than crushing inward.
Garcia filed this action against several defendants; all but Ford Motor Company were dismissed pretrial. Garcia claimed that the roof of the 1989 Ford Escort was defective in design because it was not strong enough to provide its occupants adequate protection in rollover accidents. The case proceeded to a jury trial. Plaintiff's experts opined that Garcia's injuries would not have occurred had the roof crushed less than five inches, and that although the Escort's roof passed the federal strength test, that standard was inadequate. The jury, however, never got an opportunity to rule on the issue.
After two weeks of testimony, when plaintiff rested his case, the trial court granted Ford Motor Company's motion for directed verdict. The trial court concluded that plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof that there existed an alternative design that was capable of preventing his injury . Specifically, the trial court found that plaintiff "has presented only an expert's concept that was untested, unengineered and . . . mere speculation." With this view we must disagree and therefore reverse and remand.
Discussion
A motion for directed verdict is appropriately granted when it is clear that the facts and inferences point so completely in favor of granting the verdict that reasonable jurors could not arrive at a contrary verdict. Adams v. Travelers Insurance Company, 589 So. 2d 605 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1991). In reviewing a grant of a directed verdict, the appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence submitted, reasonable people could disagree. Bergeron v. Blake Drilling & Workover Company, Inc., 599 So. 2d 827 (La. App. 1st Cir 1992).
In this case, plaintiff's claim is governed by La. R.S. 9:2800.56 of the Louisiana Products Liability Act which states:
A product is unreasonably dangerous in design if, at the time the product left its manufacturer's control:
1) There existed an alternative design for the product that was capable of preventing the claimant's damage; and,
2) The likelihood that the product's design would cause the claimant's damage and the gravity of that damage outweighed the burden on the manufacturer of adopting such alternative design and the adverse effect, if any, of such alternative design on the utility of the product. An adequate warning about a product shall be considered in evaluating the likelihood of the damage when the manufacturer has used reasonable care to
Page 1 2 3 4 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|