Trial Magazine

Smith v. Ford Motor Co., No. CV-2016-900273 (Ala. Cir. Ct. Dallas Cnty. Feb. 15, 2019)

Travaris “Tre” Smith, 20, was a passenger in an SUV when the driver swerved to avoid hitting an animal in the road. The driver lost control of the vehicle, and it rolled over twice before coming to rest on the road’s shoulder. Smith was knocked unconscious, and his spinal cord was severed during the crash, paralyzing him.

The SUV—a 1998 Ford Explorer—had been the subject of two recalls due to its rollover risk. The vehicle’s design prevented it from “sliding out”—which is when the tires gradually lose grip and let the vehicle eventually come to a stop. This is what should happen when a driver swerves without hitting an obstruction. But in this Explorer model, the tires maintained their grip on the road, allowing the forces acting on the SUV to continue and ­eventually cause the top-heavy vehicle to roll over. According to the National ­Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the 1998 Explorer has been the subject of 14 different recalls, and the agency has received more than 2,000 complaints about the vehicle.

At trial, Smith’s attorneys—LaBarron Boone, Greg Allen, and Kendall Dunson of Montgomery, Ala., and Bill Gamble of Selma, Ala.—focused on Ford’s egregious conduct in hiding safety information and misrepresenting rollover testing of the vehicle. A Dallas County, Ala., jury agreed and awarded Smith more than $51 million in compensatory damages and $100 million in punitive damages.
Smith’s attorneys argued that the defendant knew about the SUV’s rollover risk but chose not to implement a safer design. The vehicle repeatedly failed safety testing conducted by Consumers Union, the nonprofit organi­zation behind Consumer Reports, and when Ford was notified of the rollover issues, it did not alter the design.

Instead, the attorneys argued, the automaker changed the way it tested the vehicle from real-world tests to a software program known as Adams, which allows carmakers to run virtual simulations of how a vehicle would perform in a particular situation. But even then, the defendant destroyed data entered into and created by the software. “We have seen bad conduct before, but the egregiousness of Ford’s scheme to mislead the jury was stunning. Ford claimed the Adams data that would have proved the safety of this vehicle was destroyed because it had no scientific value and was too expensive to maintain. We provided proof that something as basic as a $100 thumb drive could have easily preserved the data,” said Boone.

Evidence also showed that rather than manufacture the vehicle with a safer alternative design, Ford opted for smaller, less expensive modifications such as tires and air pressure levels to try to reduce the rollover risk—and that the defectively designed vehicle is still on the road today.

“Tre had the misfortune of riding in a vehicle Ford knew could and did hurt him,” said Boone. “Ford failed Tre and so many other consumers. The jurors in Dallas County held Ford accountable for yet another tragedy in a decades-long saga of the company’s efforts to cover up the shoddy design and its refusal to adequately address the problems.”

Smith’s attorneys noted that instead of spending time and money ­defending rollover litigation against it, the ­automaker could have invested in design changes to prevent injuries like those Smith suffered. They also believe the jury’s verdict was intended to send a message to Ford that covering up risks and manipulating testing data is unacceptable.

Even though the crash forever changed Smith’s life, the attorneys hope the jury’s verdict will offer him and his family some relief. “We represent a 24-year-old young man who cannot be left alone to care for himself in any way,” said Dunson. “This verdict represents justice for Tre and his family. Thanks to a courageous jury, he now will be able to access basic necessities within his home and have access to the care he needs.”

Kate Halloran the senior associate editor of Trial magazine.