— A Ford truck roof-crush lawsuit (Hill v. Ford) led a Georgia jury to award a family $1.7 billion in a rollover crash that killed a husband and wife.
But now the entire case will be heard again as the Court of Appeals of Georgia granted Ford a new trial.
Ford appealed the mind-bending $1.7 billion verdict by arguing the trial court made several mistakes that Ford said put it legally at an unfair disadvantage, and the appeals court debated several issues, including what it means “to wear a seat safety belt.”
The Ford roof collapse lawsuit blames Ford for the 2014 deaths of 74-year-old Melvin Hill and his wife Voncile Hill, 62.
In the fatal crash, a tire blew out on the 2002 Ford F-250 truck and caused the truck's roof to slam into the ground three times while rolling up a hill.
Although a Pep Boys service center allegedly installed the wrong tire on the truck, the jury placed the blame on Ford and the allegedly weak roof found on more than 5 million model year 1999-2016 Super Duty trucks.
Ford argues the roof collapsed due to the violent rollover crash which occurred when the tire suddenly failed. But the family members who sued claim their parents would have survived the crash if Ford would have installed a stronger truck roof.
Ford Roof Collapse Lawsuit — New Trial
Ford appealed the $1.7 billion verdict by arguing several points, including how Ford contends the trial court excluded evidence the F-250 driver (Mr. Hill) was at fault. According to Ford, it has evidence that it was Melvin Hill who requested that Pep Boys install the wrong tire on the truck and that Mr. Hill mishandled the truck after its tire blew out.
"With respect to the argument that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of driver fault, Ford contends that the amount of compensatory damages awarded to the Plaintiffs must account for Georgia's comparative fault statute, which...'reduce[s] the amount of damages otherwise awarded to the plaintiff' if 'the plaintiff is to some degree responsible for the injury or damages claimed.'”
On this subject, the appeals court ruled the trial court may choose whether to reconsider Ford's evidence.
Ford further argues the trial court refused to allow evidence regarding whether the Hills allegedly tucked the chest strap portion of their seat belts under their arms instead of wearing the belts across the chest and over the shoulder. The appeals court agreed with Ford.
Ford also argues the trial court excluded "critical scientific testing about the relationship between rollover injuries and roof deformation." The appeals court agreed with Ford.
The Georgia Appeals Court vacated the jury's $1.7 billion verdict and judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.
The Ford roof collapse lawsuit was filed in the State Court of Gwinnett County Georgia: Hill v. Ford Motor Company., case number 16-C-04179-S2.
The plaintiffs are represented by Butler Prather LLP, Mahaffey Pickens Tucker LLP, Walker, Hulbert, Gray & Moore, LLP, and Bondurant Mixson & Elmore.
CarComplaints.com will update our website with further developments about the Ford truck roof crush lawsuit and new trial.
