 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gray v. Ford Motor Co.10/31/2005
Plaintiffs asserting products liability claims based on a fatal rollover accident involving a 1997 Ford Expedition appeal the order of dismissal entered following a defense verdict. They allege that the trial court misapplied the law regarding evidence and failed to conduct the trial evenhandedly. Plaintiffs also challenge the cost bill assessing to plaintiffs defendant's costs for two depositions used at trial. Because the plaintiffs fail to establish any abuse of discretion in the trial court's evidentiary rulings, we affirm the judgment. Because the record demonstrates that the deposition costs should not have been awarded to the defendant, we reverse the challenged cost award.
I.
Martha Gray, accompanied by Keisha Calhoun, Calhoun's four children, and Gail Garrett, was driving her 1997 Ford Expedition when the vehicle rolled over two and a half times, landing on its roof. Gray was thrown out of the vehicle and died. Calhoun, who was ejected, and Garrett, who was restrained in the car, sustained injuries.
At a jury trial, Martha's husband Henry Gray and Garrett claimed that the vehicle was not reasonably safe in design with respect to stability and roof strength, causing Martha's injuries when the vehicle rolled, crushing the roof into the occupant's compartment on the driver's side. Ford argued that Gray and Calhoun were ejected from the car and injured because they were not wearing their seat belts. The trial court granted some of Ford's motions during trial, dismissing as a matter of law plaintiffs' claims regarding defects in the Expedition's seat belts and glass, a claim for Martha's pre-death pain and suffering, and claims of failure to warn and economic loss in the wrongful death claim. Following trial, the jury answered special interrogatories in favor of Ford on both of the remaining claims.
Gray and Garrett appeal, alleging that the trial court abused its discretion with regard to certain evidentiary matters and improperly assessed costs for two depositions against them.
II.
Evidentiary Issues
Gray and Garrett first argue that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding Calhoun's testimony regarding her estimate of the speed of the vehicle at the time of the rollover. The trial court granted Ford's motion to exclude Calhoun's testimony regarding speed because she had only been in the Expedition once before the accident, stating:
I don't believe that an adequate foundation for her ability to estimate the speed of a vehicle she has been in once before is possible. Weighing this argument in my mind, I was particularly wanting to know whether she had ever taken a look at the speedometer, which would make a big difference.
If it is the first or second time she has been in the vehicle, I don't believe that an adequate foundation can be laid for estimating speed, knowing that all vehicles feel incredibly different with regard to speed. I am sure we all have been in vehicles where you are surprised at how fast you are going because of the particular vehicle and vice versa.
The trial court then allowed Gray and Garrett to examine Calhoun outside the presence of the jury to develop an adequate foundation. During the offer of proof, Calhoun testified that she had been a licensed driver for approximately 13 years; that she had driven in the area of the accident on many occasions before the accident; that the speed limit was 40 miles per hour; that she had ridden in the Expedition once before the accident, on surface streets and the highway; that she had ridden in other sport utility vehicles on surface streets and the highway prior to the accident; and that she es
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|