STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
CA 06-101
SEAN EDWARDS
VERSUS
FORD MOTOR COMPANY
**********
APPEAL FROM THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CONCORDIA, NO. 37048 HONORABLE KATHY A. JOHNSON, DISTRICT JUDGE
JOHN D. SAUNDERS JUDGE
Court composed of John D. Saunders, Elizabeth A. Pickett, and James T. Genovese, Judges.
REVERSED.
Neal Glen Johnson Assistant District Attorney 15th Judicial District Court P. O. Box 3306 Lafayette, LA 70502 (337) 232-5170 Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee: Sean Edwards Robert William Maxwell Hilliard Finch Kelly Michael B. Alker McCranie, Sistrunk, Anzelmo, Hardy, Maxwell, & McDaniel 195 Greenbriar Blvd., Ste 200 Covington, LA 70433 (504) 831-0946 Counsel for Defendant/Appellant: Ford Motor Company
Gregory Engelsman Bolen, Parker & Brenner P. O. Box 11590 Alexandria, LA 71315-1590 (318) 445-8236 Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee: Sean Edwards SAUNDERS, Judge.
This litigation arises from an incident wherein a vehicle’s air bag unexpectedly
deployed causing personal injuries. Suit was filed against the manufacturer of the
vehicle, Ford Motor Company (hereinafter referred to as “Ford”), under the Louisiana
Products Liability Act (hereinafter referred to as “LPLA”) for defective design and/or
manufacture and inadequate warning. Plaintiff, Sean Edwards, also pled the doctrine
of res ipsa loquitur. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff on the basis of res
ipsa loquitur. We reverse.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff leased the vehicle in question, a 1999 Ford F-250 pick-up truck, on
May 25, 1999. Prior to the incident on August 8, 1999, plaintiff experienced no
technical problems, but did notice a burning odor. The vehicle was never examined
by a Ford technician to determine the cause of the odor nor did plaintiff, an
automobile mechanic, ever personally attempt to ascertain the cause of the odor.
Upon returning from a shopping trip, plaintiff dropped his wife off at their
home then drove the vehicle to his shop on adjoining property. He exited the vehicle
while it was still running to open the door to his shop and when he re-entered the
vehicle and shut the door the air bag deployed. Plaintiff initially sought treatment at
the emergency room of Riverland Medical Center. He then began seeing Dr. Chad
Norton, whose treatment lasted a few weeks, and contacted an attorney. Plaintiff’s
attorney recommended that he have the vehicle inspected by an expert and Mr.
Edwards brought it to Charles Smith. The vehicle was then towed to a repair shop
in Monroe for further inspection. When the towing company arrived, the dash of the
subject vehicle caught fire. The fire was extinguished with a soft drink and the
vehicle was transported. Plaintiff filed suit under the LPLA and also pled the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur. At the close of plaintiff’s case, Ford moved for a directed verdict arguing
that liability had not been established pursuant to the LPLA. Plaintiff effectively
abandoned his claims under the LPLA and argued only that res ipsa loquitur barred
dismissal of the action. The trial court took Ford’s motion under advisement until the
conclusion of the trial at which time the motion was denied and judgment rendered
on plaintiff’s behalf. The basis of the judgment was the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Ford then timely filed this appeal.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
The trial court erred in rendering Judgment against Ford Motor Company where plaintiff/appellee, Sean Edwards, failed to prove Ford Motor Company’s product was defective under the Louisiana Products Liability Act.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A trial judge’s findings of fact will not be disturbed unless they are manifestly
erroneous or clearly wrong. Stobart v. State, through Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 617
So.2d 880 (La.1993). “Absent ‘manifest error’ or unless it is ‘clearly wrong,’ the jury
or trial court’s findings of fact may not be disturbed on appeal.” Sistler v. Liberty
Mut. Ins. Co., 558 So.2d 1106, 1111 (La.1990). “If the trial court or jury’s findings
are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may
not reverse, even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would
have weighed the evidence differently.” Id. at 1112.
Issues regarding the sufficiency of evidence are legal in nature. Darbonne v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-551 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/00), 774 So.2d 1022; Fauntleroy
v. Rainbow Marketers, 04-926 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/10/04), 888 So.2d 1045. When
reviewing questions of law, appellate courts are to determine if the trial court’s ruling
2 was legally correct or not. Cleland v. City of Lake Charles, 02-0805, 01-1463
(La.App. 3 Cir. 3/5/03), 840 So.2d 686, writ denieds, 03-1380, 03-1385 (La. 9/19/03),
853 So.2d 644, 645.
DISCUSSION
When discussing plaintiff’s burden under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the
trial court determined that it is not “necessary to rule out all other reasonable
explanations or evidence to the contrary . . .” This statement reflects adherence to our
decision in Lawson v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales Am., Inc., 04-839 (La.App. 3 Cir.
12/29/04), 896 So.2d 149, writ granted 05-0257 (La. 4/29/05), 901 So.2d 1044,
which was heavily relied upon by plaintiff both here and below. In Lawson, a
vehicle’s air bag was deployed when the driver honked her horn and we employed res
ipsa loquitur. Lawson, however, is distinguishable from the case at bar. In that case,
the plaintiff presented significant expert testimony from an engineer regarding the
“forensic analysis of electronic component vehicle controls and failure analysis of air
bag systems.” Id. at 154. Furthermore, the expert in Lawson presented a specific
theory attributing the air bag deployment to a clock malfunction. Plaintiff here did
not present evidence of the same caliber as that presented in Lawson. This disparity
in evidence and the lack of a plausible theory by plaintiff are the distinguishing
characteristics and require a finding that the principles espoused in Lawson were not
properly applied here.
We agree that plaintiff need not rule out each and every possible theory, for so
requiring would render the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur meaningless. We do,
however, find that plausible, well-developed theories absolving a defendant of
liability must be addressed or alternative theories proposed. For to do otherwise is
3 to ignore the elephant in the living room and grant recovery for simply experiencing
a strange accident. This is not the purpose of res ipsa loquitur. That doctrine is a
vehicle by which negligence may be inferred, not a sword that blindly carves out a
recovery. Plaintiff failed to offer direct evidence or plausible theories in
contradiction of defendant’s largely uncontradicted explanation in the instant matter.
We will first address the evidence offered by defendant.
Ford manufactured approximately 600,000 F-Series trucks in 1999 and the
vehicle at issue here represents the only instance of spontaneous air bag deployment.
Defendant also introduced uncontradicted evidence indicating that the air bag did not
deploy because of its negligence. Michael Nranian, a design analysis engineer for
Ford, specializing in air design/manufacture and electrical systems, testified that,
when he examined the vehicle at issue, a large amperage fuse was missing from a fuse
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
CA 06-101
SEAN EDWARDS
VERSUS
FORD MOTOR COMPANY
**********
APPEAL FROM THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CONCORDIA, NO. 37048 HONORABLE KATHY A. JOHNSON, DISTRICT JUDGE
JOHN D. SAUNDERS JUDGE
Court composed of John D. Saunders, Elizabeth A. Pickett, and James T. Genovese, Judges.
REVERSED.
Neal Glen Johnson Assistant District Attorney 15th Judicial District Court P. O. Box 3306 Lafayette, LA 70502 (337) 232-5170 Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee: Sean Edwards Robert William Maxwell Hilliard Finch Kelly Michael B. Alker McCranie, Sistrunk, Anzelmo, Hardy, Maxwell, & McDaniel 195 Greenbriar Blvd., Ste 200 Covington, LA 70433 (504) 831-0946 Counsel for Defendant/Appellant: Ford Motor Company
Gregory Engelsman Bolen, Parker & Brenner P. O. Box 11590 Alexandria, LA 71315-1590 (318) 445-8236 Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee: Sean Edwards SAUNDERS, Judge.
This litigation arises from an incident wherein a vehicle’s air bag unexpectedly
deployed causing personal injuries. Suit was filed against the manufacturer of the
vehicle, Ford Motor Company (hereinafter referred to as “Ford”), under the Louisiana
Products Liability Act (hereinafter referred to as “LPLA”) for defective design and/or
manufacture and inadequate warning. Plaintiff, Sean Edwards, also pled the doctrine
of res ipsa loquitur. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff on the basis of res
ipsa loquitur. We reverse.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff leased the vehicle in question, a 1999 Ford F-250 pick-up truck, on
May 25, 1999. Prior to the incident on August 8, 1999, plaintiff experienced no
technical problems, but did notice a burning odor. The vehicle was never examined
by a Ford technician to determine the cause of the odor nor did plaintiff, an
automobile mechanic, ever personally attempt to ascertain the cause of the odor.
Upon returning from a shopping trip, plaintiff dropped his wife off at their
home then drove the vehicle to his shop on adjoining property. He exited the vehicle
while it was still running to open the door to his shop and when he re-entered the
vehicle and shut the door the air bag deployed. Plaintiff initially sought treatment at
the emergency room of Riverland Medical Center. He then began seeing Dr. Chad
Norton, whose treatment lasted a few weeks, and contacted an attorney. Plaintiff’s
attorney recommended that he have the vehicle inspected by an expert and Mr.
Edwards brought it to Charles Smith. The vehicle was then towed to a repair shop
in Monroe for further inspection. When the towing company arrived, the dash of the
subject vehicle caught fire. The fire was extinguished with a soft drink and the
vehicle was transported. Plaintiff filed suit under the LPLA and also pled the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur. At the close of plaintiff’s case, Ford moved for a directed verdict arguing
that liability had not been established pursuant to the LPLA. Plaintiff effectively
abandoned his claims under the LPLA and argued only that res ipsa loquitur barred
dismissal of the action. The trial court took Ford’s motion under advisement until the
conclusion of the trial at which time the motion was denied and judgment rendered
on plaintiff’s behalf. The basis of the judgment was the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Ford then timely filed this appeal.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
The trial court erred in rendering Judgment against Ford Motor Company where plaintiff/appellee, Sean Edwards, failed to prove Ford Motor Company’s product was defective under the Louisiana Products Liability Act.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A trial judge’s findings of fact will not be disturbed unless they are manifestly
erroneous or clearly wrong. Stobart v. State, through Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 617
So.2d 880 (La.1993). “Absent ‘manifest error’ or unless it is ‘clearly wrong,’ the jury
or trial court’s findings of fact may not be disturbed on appeal.” Sistler v. Liberty
Mut. Ins. Co., 558 So.2d 1106, 1111 (La.1990). “If the trial court or jury’s findings
are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may
not reverse, even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would
have weighed the evidence differently.” Id. at 1112.
Issues regarding the sufficiency of evidence are legal in nature. Darbonne v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-551 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/00), 774 So.2d 1022; Fauntleroy
v. Rainbow Marketers, 04-926 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/10/04), 888 So.2d 1045. When
reviewing questions of law, appellate courts are to determine if the trial court’s ruling
2 was legally correct or not. Cleland v. City of Lake Charles, 02-0805, 01-1463
(La.App. 3 Cir. 3/5/03), 840 So.2d 686, writ denieds, 03-1380, 03-1385 (La. 9/19/03),
853 So.2d 644, 645.
DISCUSSION
When discussing plaintiff’s burden under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the
trial court determined that it is not “necessary to rule out all other reasonable
explanations or evidence to the contrary . . .” This statement reflects adherence to our
decision in Lawson v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales Am., Inc., 04-839 (La.App. 3 Cir.
12/29/04), 896 So.2d 149, writ granted 05-0257 (La. 4/29/05), 901 So.2d 1044,
which was heavily relied upon by plaintiff both here and below. In Lawson, a
vehicle’s air bag was deployed when the driver honked her horn and we employed res
ipsa loquitur. Lawson, however, is distinguishable from the case at bar. In that case,
the plaintiff presented significant expert testimony from an engineer regarding the
“forensic analysis of electronic component vehicle controls and failure analysis of air
bag systems.” Id. at 154. Furthermore, the expert in Lawson presented a specific
theory attributing the air bag deployment to a clock malfunction. Plaintiff here did
not present evidence of the same caliber as that presented in Lawson. This disparity
in evidence and the lack of a plausible theory by plaintiff are the distinguishing
characteristics and require a finding that the principles espoused in Lawson were not
properly applied here.
We agree that plaintiff need not rule out each and every possible theory, for so
requiring would render the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur meaningless. We do,
however, find that plausible, well-developed theories absolving a defendant of
liability must be addressed or alternative theories proposed. For to do otherwise is
3 to ignore the elephant in the living room and grant recovery for simply experiencing
a strange accident. This is not the purpose of res ipsa loquitur. That doctrine is a
vehicle by which negligence may be inferred, not a sword that blindly carves out a
recovery. Plaintiff failed to offer direct evidence or plausible theories in
contradiction of defendant’s largely uncontradicted explanation in the instant matter.
We will first address the evidence offered by defendant.
Ford manufactured approximately 600,000 F-Series trucks in 1999 and the
vehicle at issue here represents the only instance of spontaneous air bag deployment.
Defendant also introduced uncontradicted evidence indicating that the air bag did not
deploy because of its negligence. Michael Nranian, a design analysis engineer for
Ford, specializing in air design/manufacture and electrical systems, testified that,
when he examined the vehicle at issue, a large amperage fuse was missing from a fuse
panel. The air bag’s power system runs through the same missing fuse. Mr. Nranian
also noted that the vehicle had been tampered with. Specifically, he testified that a
wire or some other object was inserted into the fuse panel where the missing fuse
should have been located in order to power an aftermarket accessory. Accordingly,
he concluded that the fuse panel providing power to the air bag system was
overloaded. Air bag deployment, according to Mr. Nranian, is one of many possible
results of tampering with the system in this manner.
Defendant also offered the testimony of Larry Helton, an expert in fire cause
and origin. Mr. Helton corroborated Mr. Nranian’s testimony regarding aftermarket
alterations to the fuse panel. He testified that fuses, such as the one missing from the
subject vehicle, are often removed by vehicle owners to wire radios or other
electronic equipment. Mr. Helton stated that these alterations damage the entire
4 electrical system of the vehicle and present fire hazards. Noting the charring of the
wires in the area of the missing fuse, he determined that aftermarket alterations
caused the wires to overheat possibly resulting in the air bag deployment.
Plaintiff relied upon the testimony of Charles Smith, a construction worker who
previously worked as a mechanic and whose expertise related to transmissions and
engines, to establish that the defect in the air bag system was attributable to
defendant. Mr. Smith testified that he pulled the cover off a box on the vehicle’s
steering column, noticed burned wires, concluded they were the source of the
problem and replaced the cover of the box. He did not track the route of the burned
wires or even examine the air bag system. On cross examination, Mr. Smith testified
that he has no knowledge regarding air bag design and could not identify any
manufacturing defect. Furthermore, his testimony was contradicted by that of
defendant’s experts. Mr. Nranian testified that the wires referred to by Mr. Smith are
not connected to the air bag system. Mr. Helton testified that the “shorted” wires that
caused the air bag to deploy according to Mr. Smith were not shorted at all. He stated
that the wires were exposed to an external heat source and did not exhibit any
defining characteristics of internal malfunctions.
After reviewing the record, we find that no evidence exists indicating a specific
defect in the vehicle when it left defendant’s control. We further find that the
evidence does not support an inference of negligence on defendant’s part.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.
5 CONCLUSION
The judgment of the trial court is reversed. Costs of this appeal are assessed
to plaintiff.