1998 Ford Ranger Tire Defect Causes Rollover, Leads To Catastrophic Injury and Wrongful Death
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DARLA WEAVER individually and as successor in interest to the Estate of
CHRISTOPHER WILSON, Deceased,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; AMERICAN PACIFIC INDUSTRIES,
INC., a California corporation; STOCKTON HILL TIRE, also doing business as VEST
INVESTMENT CORP., an Arizona corporation; CHRISTOPHER WILSON, SR. and DOES
1 through 25, inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO. PC047649
Judge:
Dept.
[UNLIMITED CIVIL]
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL DEATH, SURVIVAL ACTION; DEMAND FOR JURY
TRIAL
1. Strict Product Liability: Defect Tire
2. Negligence:
Defective Tire
3. Breach of Express and
Implied
Warranties
4. Strict Product Liability: Defect Vehicle
5.
Negligence: Defective Vehicle
6. Breach of Implied Warranty
re: Defective Vehicle
Complaint filed:
Trial date: None
Comes now
Plaintiff, DARLA WEAVER individually and as successor in interest to the Estate
of CHRISTOPHER WILSON, Deceased and for causes of action against Defendants,
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; AMERICAN PACIFIC INDUSTRIES, INC., a
California corporation; STOCKTON HILL TIRE, also doing business as VEST
INVESTMENT CORP., an Arizona corporation; CHRISTOPHER WILSON, SR. and DOES
1 through 25, inclusive, and each of them, alleges as
follows.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. At all times herein
mentioned in this complaint, Plaintiff DARLA WEAVER individually and as
successor in interest to the Estate of CHRISTOPHER WILSON, Deceased was and is
an individual and resident of the city of Kingman, state of Arizona.
2. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff, DARLA WEAVER, was and
is the
natural mother of CHRISTOPHER WILSON, and his sole surviving heir. At
all times herein mentioned, plaintiff is the successor in interest to the Estate
of CHRISTOPHER WILSON, deceased, and brings this action on behalf of the Estate
of CHRISTOPHER WILSON deceased, as a survival action, pursuant to C.C.P. §
377.32. Prior to his death, CHRISTOPHER WILSON lingered in a severely impaired
and damaged state of health for approximately 14 months before succumbing to the
effects of his injuries. Plaintiff, DARLA WEAVER, also brings this action as a
wrongful death action, pursuant to C.C.P. §377.60.
3. At all times mentioned herein this Complaint, Defendant, FORD
MOTOR COMPANY was and is a Corporation organized and existing pursuant to the
laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business in Dearborn,
Michigan, and was at all times herein mentioned authorized and/or qualified to
do business, and was and is doing business, in the State of California and was
the manufacturer and/or seller of the SUBJECT VEHICLE described below.
4. At all times mentioned herein this Complaint, Defendant,
AMERICAN
PACIFIC INDUSTRIES, INC. was and is a California corporation,
organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of California and, on
information and belief, was the manufacturer and/or seller of the SUBJECT TIRE
described below.
5. At all times mentioned herein this Complaint, Defendant
STOCKTON HILL TIRE,
also doing business as VEST INVESTMENT CORP. was and is
an Arizona corporation, organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State
of Arizona and, on information and belief, was the seller of the SUBJECT TIRE
described below.
6. At all times herein mentioned in this complaint, Defendant
CHRISTOPHER
WILSON, SR. was and is an individual and resident of the city of
Kingman, state of Arizona.
7. Plaintiff, on information and belief, alleges that
each defendant designated herein as
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, is directly
and/or vicariously liable for the events and happenings which proximately
caused the injuries and damages to plaintiff alleged herein, either through said
defendant's own conduct (or failure to act) or through the conduct (or failure
to act) of its agents, servants, employees, contractors, or representatives in
some other manner. The true identities and capacities of said defendants are
presently unknown and will be alleged by amendment when ascertained.
8. Plaintiff, on information and belief, alleges that at
all pertinent times each
defendant was the agent, servant, employee,
representative and/or joint venturer, or other status which gives rise to
vicarious liability, in relation to one or more co-defendants who at all
times acted within the course, scope and authority of said
relationship.
9. On September 9, 2008, at or about 9:10 p.m., decedent,
Christopher Wilson was
a passenger in a 1998 Ford Ranger pickup being driven
at the legal speed on westbound Arizona State Route 68 in Mojave County, Arizona
in clear weather and with dry road conditions. Mr. Wilson was a passenger
in a 1998 Ford Ranger with Arizona plate number ABA5269 (VIN 1FTYR14UOWPA80492)
(the “SUBJECT VEHICLE”), which was equipped with AMERICAN PACIFIC INDUSTRIES,
INC. “P235/75R15 SPECTOR A/T” tires (the “SUBJECT TIRE”) on one or more of
its wheels. As the SUBJECT VEHICLE was traveling the SUBJECT TIRE
experienced a blow out which in turn caused the SUBJECT VEHICLE to lose control
and roll over one or more times before coming to rest. Mr. Wilson was ejected
from the SUBJECT VEHICLE at some point in this sequence, and suffered serious
and traumatic brain injuries sustained in the rollover and ejection sequence
which ultimately caused Mr. Wilson’s death on November 8, 2009 due to
hypostatic bronchopneumonia and persistent vegetative state from traumatic brain
injury suffered in the SUBJECT ACCIDENT.
10. As a proximate result of the death of Mr. Wilson,
the plaintiff has sustained
damages in amounts to be determined at
trial, including catastrophic injury medical care costs for her deceased son and
loss of the love, companionship, society and future support from her son.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Strict Product Liability: Defective Tire)
11. Plaintiff refers to each of the allegations in
paragraphs 1-10 above, which are
incorporated by reference herein.
12. Defendants AMERICAN PACIFIC INDUSTRIES, INC. and STOCKTON
HILL
TIRE, also doing business as VEST INVESTMENT CORP., each knew that the
SUBJECT TIRE was to be purchased and used without inspection for defects by
consumers including decedent.
13. The SUBJECT TIRE and each of its component parts was
manufactured, designed,
assembled, packaged, tested, fabricated, analyzed,
inspected, merchandised, marketed, distributed, labeled, advertised, promoted,
sold, supplied, leased, rented, repaired, adjusted, selected and used with
inherent vices and defects in design and/or manufacturing and/or by failure to
warn of the defect or potential thereof, which made it dangerous, hazardous and
unsafe for its intended use or for reasonably foreseeable misuses.
14. The existence of one or more defects in the SUBJECT
TIRE caused it to experience
a blow out under normal usage by decedent’s
driver.
15. But for such defect related failure, the injuries to
decedent Christopher Wilson, which
resulted in his death, would not have
occurred.
16. Defendant AMERICAN PACIFIC INDUSTRIES, INC., was aware
of design and
manufacturing defects in tires similar to the SUBJECT TIRE and
issued a recall for some similar tires and implemented design and manufacturing
changes in some sizes and models of similar tires, but consciously, in disregard
of consumer safety, decided not to recall all relevant tires or implement those
same design corrections in all relevant tires. The officers, directors and
managing agent of said defendant also knew the ordinary and expected uses of the
SUBJECT TIRE, and similar tires manufactured under the same or similar
condition, and/or utilizing the same or similar components or design features,
including being driven on highways or freeways at freeway speeds, and under
conditions that would impose high lateral accelerations, loading and heat, which
could and would cause premature, sudden, and catastrophic tread separations in
these tires and which would be extremely difficult to detect by ordinary
consumers and users. The officers, directors and managing agent of said
defendant also knew or should have known that tread separations, particularly on
rear tires, could and would lead to sudden and unexpected loss of control and
loss of directional stability in vehicles. Further, the officers,
directors and managing agent of said defendant acted in conscious disregard of
consumer safety by first conceding to the public and then publically disavowing
any design defects in such tires, while simultaneously conducting a partial
recall of substantially similar tires. By failing to recall all relevant
tires that had been manufactured without the design corrections, defendant
continued to knowingly expose consumers, such as the decedent to an unreasonable
risk of injury or death.
17. Said defendants, and each of them, in an effort to
mislead the public, and thereby
increase profits at the expense of human
safety, summarily disregarded and failed to disclose to the public this high
risk of tread separations leading to sudden and unexpected loss of control in
vehicles on which the relevant tires were installed, including the SUBJECT
VEHICLE, because such information was unfavorable to their companies and might
lead consumers and users to refrain from purchasing or using the tires.
18. The above described acts and omissions of said
defendants by and through their officers, directors, employees and/or managing
agents, were carried out with a conscious disregard of the rights and safety of
consumers and, therefore, plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages
pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294 in an amount sufficient to punish said
defendants in light of their financial condition, and to make an example of
them, in addition to the compensatory damages to which plaintiff is
entitled..
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence: Defective Tire)
19. Plaintiff refers to each of the allegations in
paragraphs 1-18, above, which are
incorporated by reference herein.
20. At all pertinent times, defendants AMERICAN PACIFIC
INDUSTRIES, INC.
and STOCKTON HILL TIRE, also doing business as VEST
INVESTMENT CORP., each had a duty to properly manufacture, design, assemble,
package, test, fabricate, analyze, and/or inspect the SUBJECT TIRE prior to
placing it in the stream of commerce.
21. Each said defendant knew or should have known that the
SUBJECT TIRE and each
of its component parts was not properly
manufactured, designed, assembled, packaged, tested, fabricated, analyzed, or
inspected for the use for which it was intended in that it was likely to injure
the person who used it, in that it contained a serious defect that would lead to
its failure under normal usage conditions.
22. Each said defendant breached its duty of care by
negligently designing, manufacturing,
assembling, packaging, testing and/or
inspecting it and each of its component parts, such that it was a
defective and dangerous product, unsafe for the use for which it was intended by
consumers including plaintiff, and as a result thereof the SUBJECT TIRE was
placed into the stream of commerce.
23. The injuries to and death of the decedent
Christopher Wilson and the resulting
damages to plaintiff were the direct
results of said negligence.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Implied Warranty re: Defective Tire)
24. Plaintiff refers to each of the allegations in
paragraphs 1-23, above, which are
incorporated by reference herein.
25. At the time the SUBJECT TIRE was put into the stream of
commerce, defendants
AMERICAN PACIFIC INDUSTRIES, INC. and STOCKTON HILL
TIRE, also doing business as VEST INVESTMENT CORP., and each impliedly warranted
that the SUBJECT TIRE was safe for its intended use and was of merchantable
quality.
26. Each said defendant breached said warranty, because the
SUBJECT TIRE was not safe
for its intended use and of merchantable quality in
that it was defective and dangerous to a consumer using it in the normal
fashion.
27. The injuries to and death of the decedent Christopher
Wilson and the resulting
damages to plaintiff were the direct result of said
breach of said warranty.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Strict Product Liability: Defective Vehicle)
28. Plaintiff refers to each of the allegations in
paragraphs 1-27, above, which are
incorporated by reference herein.
29. Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY knew that the
SUBJECT VEHICLE was to
be purchased and used without inspection for defects
by consumers including decedent.
30. The SUBJECT VEHICLE and each of its
component parts was manufactured,
designed, assembled, packaged, tested,
fabricated, analyzed, inspected, merchandised, marketed, distributed, labeled,
advertised, promoted, sold, supplied, leased, rented, repaired, adjusted,
selected and used with inherent vices and defects in design and and/or
manufacturing and/or by failure to warn of the defect or potential thereof (the
“SUBJECT DEFECTS”) which made it dangerous, hazardous and unsafe for its
intended use or for reasonably foreseeable misuses.
31. These SUBJECT DEFECTS included, but were not limited to
the following:
A. Insufficient lateral and roll stability so as to
keep the vehicle upright during cornering and handling by an ordinary driver
during reasonably foreseeable roadway and traffic
conditions;
B. Failure to warn regarding the above defects.
32. The existence of the SUBJECT DEFECTS in the
SUBJECT VEHICLE caused
it, when it experienced the failure of the
SUBJECT TIRE, to lose its lateral and roll stability and roll over, which caused
the ejection and resulting injuries to and death of the decedent Christopher
Wilson
33. But for such rollover and ejection, the injuries to
decedent Christopher Wilson which
resulted in his death would not have
occurred.
ALLEGATIONS SUPPORTING EXEMPLARY DAMAGES PRAYER
AGAINST DEFENDANT FORD
MOTOR COMPANY and
DOES 1 through 25, Inclusive, ONLY
34. Plaintiff refers to each of the allegations in
paragraphs 1-33, above, which are
incorporated by reference herein.
35. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon
alleges that Defendants FORD
MOTOR COMPANY and DOES 1 through 25, and each of
them intentionally engaged in conduct which, with respect to the SUBJECT DEFECTS
which Plaintiff alleges above were a legal cause of their loss, damages,
injuries and harm, exposed Plaintiff’s decedent and other users of the SUBJECT
VEHICLE to serious potential danger known to the Defendants in order to advance
the Defendants’ pecuniary interests and thus acted with a conscious disregard
for the safety of the Plaintiff’s decedent and other users of the SUBJECT
VEHICLE, warranting an award of exemplary damages against Defendants FORD MOTOR
COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 25 pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294, and the
rule enunciated in Ford Motor Co. v. Home Ins. Co. (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 374,
381-382. The facts supporting the Defendants’ intentional conduct which
exposed Plaintiff’s decedent and other users of the SUBJECT VEHICLE to
serious potential danger known to the Defendants in order to advance the
Defendants’ pecuniary interests, are on information and belief, as follows:
Knowingly designing and building a vehicle with inherently unsafe stability and
handling defects with a dangerously high center of gravity which created a
significant risk of rollover during foreseeable emergency maneuvers.
36. The actions of said Defendants and each of them, as
hereinabove described, were thus
undertaken with a willful and conscious
disregard for the rights and safety of consumers and users of said Defendants
trucks, vans and SUVs, including the SUBJECT VEHICLE, in order to advance the
pecuniary gains of the Defendants and each of them, and we despicable because
such aforesaid conduct would and does kill people, including but not limited to
Plaintiff’s decedent, during the course of the accident which is the subject of
this lawsuit.
37. Ford’s engineers have known from the time of the development of the
predecessor
to the Explorer, the Bronco II, and the development of the
Ranger, that the most important characteristic in maintaining control and
reducing the propensity of SUVs and trucks to rollover is understeer.
Ford’s internal engineering documents identify understeer as a “first order
effect” and the “primary factor influencing rollover propensity”. The handling
problem with an oversteering vehicle, with respect to rollover propensity, is
that it can and likely will result in the back end of the vehicle coming around
(a loss of control) with the vehicle ending up sideways to its path of
travel. The resulting side forces (“lateral acceleration”) are what cause
rollover.
38. Ford also recognized a vehicle’s “stability index” or “ static
stability factor”
(the “SSF”) the relationship of center of gravity
height and the track width of the vehicle affects rollover stability.
Ford’s engineers adopted a “handling strategy” with respect to the Explorer to
“increase understeer in all conditions.” Ford’s engineers recommended major
changes from the Bronco II to Ford management. They recommended changes to
the suspension, reduction in the engine height to lower the center of gravity,
and an increase in the track width of the vehicle to make the Explorer more
resistant to rollover than the Bronco II. Ford’s knowledge of the critical
importance of understeer was not acted upon. In the design of the Ranger, the
SSF was much lower than the infamous Bronco II or Explorer, and was only 1.22
for the SUBJECT VEHICLE 1998 Ranger.
39. The understeer handling problem is exacerbated by another design
defect handling
problem with Explorer referred to as “Skate.” Skate has
been defined by Ford as the “loss of rear-end directional control”.
40. In addition to stability issues as noted, the Ranger is
especially defective in handling.
This is not only as a result of the
understeer problem but also due to its tendency to “skate.” As noted
previously, “skate” is the “loss of rear-end directional control.” Any sort of
excitation on the suspension, whether a rumble strip, a rough road, or a single
pot hole can cause “skate.” This is simple engineering and math.
41. Ford vehicles dynamics engineer, Mr. Kenneth Kramer admitted that
Ford knew that
Rangers and Explorers had a skate problem at the time he wrote
his Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) article in 1996, with regard to
skate. Mr. Kramer admits that “skate” could be brought about by a single
tramp input Mr. Kramer was instructed by Ford management not to
mention the type or manufacturer of the Ford light truck which he tested for
skate, but rather to simply refer to it as “Vehicle A”.
42. The “loss of rear-end directional control” is a severe safety
hazard. This is
acknowledged by way of Ford’s advertisements of their
light trucks, specifically the F-150, wherein Ford admits that moving the shocks
outward and stiffening the shocks will help with control during tramp
situations. This was determined back in the mid-90's and has even
been published by Ford Motor Company engineers Ken Kramer and Bill Janitor in
their paper, Optimized Damping to Control Rear End Breakaway in Light
Trucks. It is established science accepted by Ford engineers. Ford
engineers David Shaffer and Ken Kramer have admitted that even a single
excitation of the rear shocks can cause tramp in a Ford light truck, such as the
Explorer, as a result of the Hotchkiss rear suspension with an overly soft
shock. Kramer and Shaffer admitted, years before the SUBJECT INCIDENT,
that Ford knew that by moving the shocks outward and stiffening the shocks, they
could correct the skate problem.
43. Plaintiff further alleges that the conduct of the
defendants was undertaken with the
result that the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s ultimate
defects in its design and production were fully intended by the Defendants to
reside therein such that they were and are the product of entire corporate
management and corporate policy of the Defendants with respect to the conscious
willful and disregard of public safety for defendants’ pecuniary gain with
regard to the design, manufacture, production and marketing of the SUBJECT
VEHICLE.
44. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct
of Defendants and each
of them, Plaintiff submits that an award of exemplary
and punitive damages against Defendants FORD MOTOR COMPANY; and DOES 1 through
25, and each of them is proper and appropriate to punish said Defendants and to
deter such conduct in the future.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence: Defective Vehicle)
45. Plaintiff refers to each of the allegations in paragraphs 1-44
above, which are
incorporated by reference herein.
46. At all pertinent times, defendants FORD MOTOR COMPANY had a
duty to properly
manufacture, design, assemble, package, test, fabricate,
analyze, and inspect the SUBJECT VEHICLE prior to placing it in the stream
of commerce.
47. Each said defendant knew or should have known that the
SUBJECT VEHICLE and
each its pertinent component parts was not properly
manufactured, designed, assembled, packaged, tested, fabricated, analyzed, or
inspected for the use for which it was intended in that it was likely to injure
the person who used it.
48. Each said defendant breached its duty of care by
negligently designing, manufacturing,
assembling, packaging, testing and/or
inspecting the SUBJECT VEHICLE and each of its pertinent component parts,
such that it was a defective and dangerous product, unsafe for the use for
which it was intended by consumers including plaintiff, and as a result thereof
the SUBJECT VEHICLE was placed into the stream of commerce.
49. The injuries to and death of the decedent Christopher
Wilson and the resulting
damages to plaintiffs were the direct result of said
negligence.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Implied Warranty re: Defective Vehicle)
50. Plaintiff refers to each of the allegations in
paragraphs 1-49, above, which are
incorporated by reference herein.
51. At the time the SUBJECT VEHICLE was put into the stream
of commerce,
defendants FORD MOTOR COMPANY each impliedly warranted
that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was safe for its intended use and was of merchantable
quality.
52. Each said defendant breached said warranty, because the
SUBJECT VEHICLE was
not safe for its intended use and of merchantable quality
in that it was defective and dangerous to a consumer using it in the normal
fashion.
53. The injuries to and death of the decedent Christopher
Wilson and the resulting
damages to plaintiff were the direct result of said
negligence.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays:
1. For damages in
amounts to be proved for medical costs and the wrongful death of her
son;
2. For costs of suit;
3. For punitive
damages,
4. And for further relief as warranted.
DATED: February 26, 2010 BISNAR|CHASE
BY: ______________________________________________
BRIAN
D. CHASE, Esq.
JOHN V. BELL,
ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by a 12-person jury.
DATED: February 26, 2010 BISNAR|CHASE
BY: ______________________________________________
BRIAN
D. CHASE, Esq.
JOHN V. BELL,
Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Be on the Hit-and-Run Lookout
BISNAR | CHASE, in conjunction with WeTip, a leading anonymous crime reporting service and law enforcement advocacy non-profit organization, is launching a program intended to wipe out hit-and-runs in the state of California by offering rewards for tips leading to the arrest and felony conviction of hit-and-run drivers. See Hit-and-Run Reward for more details.
BISNAR | CHASE 2006-2010 Super Lawyers names outstanding lawyers from more than 60 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. BISNAR | CHASE has received this award for five consecutive years. Brian Chase was named one of the 2010 Top 50 Orange County Lawyers.
