Dax Pierson v. Ford Motor Company

MEMORANDUM **

Dax Pierson was permanently paralyzed from his shoulders down following an accident while he was a passenger in a rented van that was manufactured by Ford Motor Company.

The complaint asserted a product liability action against Ford. After the jury returned a verdict in favor of Pierson, Ford moved for a new trial and judgment as a matter of law and also to reduce the verdict in light of settlement payments that Pierson had received from other entities. The district court reduced the amount and entered judgment in favor of Pierson in the amount of $14,928,367.78.

On appeal, Ford claims that the jury’s verdict was not supported by substantial evidence as to causation. Specifically, Ford alleges that Pierson did not establish *968 that the design of the van was a substantial factor in causing his injuries. Ford asserts Pierson failed to offer expert testimony on two key points of his theory: (1) that the roof deformed on the van’s first roll; and (2) that the seat unlatched during the first roll. Ford further contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying its motions, pursuant to Dauberb v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113…

dissenting:

I must dissent from the majority’s decision. This jury could not make its causation determination based solely on the forensic evidence presented at trial. Indeed, neither party argued to the district court that Pierson’s case could be made -without the assistance of expert testimony. In closing argument, Pierson’s own counsel repeatedly emphasized that forensic evidence coupled with expert testimony shows that Pierson’s seat launched during the first roll and that his head collided with the collapsing roof on the driver’s side of the vehicle. The notion that this conclusion could be made without the assistance of expert testimony regarding accident reconstruction, latch strength, roof deformation, and biomechanics belies everything in this record.

It is well established under California law that “[a] product liability case must be based on substantial evidence establishing both the defect and causation ... [and where] the complexity of the causation issue is beyond common experience, expert testimony is required to establish causation.” Stephen v. Ford Motor Co., 134 Cal.App.4th 1363 , 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 9, 17 (2005). Although a jury may decide what weight to give to…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 04 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S . CO U RT OF AP PE A LS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAÈ PIERSON, No. 09-17604

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:06-cv-06503-PJH

vs.

MEMORANDUM *

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 11, 2011 San Francisco, California

Before: W. FLETCHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and MILLS, Senior District Judge.**

Dax Pierson was permanently paralyzed from his shoulders down following an

accident while he was a passenger in a rented van that was manufactured by Ford

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Richard Mills, Senior United States District Judge for the Central District of Illinois, Springfield, sitting by designation. Motor Company.

The complaint asserted a product liability action against Ford. After the jury

returned a verdict…