Font Size: 
Ford Spared Liability for Defect in Retrofitted Truck Rear Bumper
New Jersey Law Journal
March 20, 2008
Ford Motor Co. is off the hook for an $11.8 million product liability judgment in a crashworthiness suit over a chassis cab's faulty rear bumper safety device.
A New Jersey appeals court ruled on Tuesday that because the cab was a component part, intended to be modified and retrofitted by the vehicle's final stage manufacturer to meet the needs of the vehicle's end-user, the plaintiff's injuries were not directly attributable to any defect in the Ford product.
It is "neither feasible nor practical to impose on Ford the legal responsibility for installing or providing the safety device at issue here," the Appellate Division held in Boyle v. Ford Motor Co., A-0889-06.
The lawyer for plaintiff Michael Boyle says he will appeal the ruling.
Boyle was driving on Route 46 in Little Falls, N.J., on Jan. 10, 2002, when his car smashed into the rear of a higher-riding Ford F-800 flatbed truck. The truck had an under-ride guard -- a metal bar designed to stop cars at their bumpers if they went into the back of the truck -- but the guard broke, the car hood ran under the truck and the car's passenger compartment was sheared off by the flatbed.
Boyle, a former iron worker, suffered a serious brain injury. Now 28, he has difficulty processing information, was left with a reduced attention span and is unable to smell or taste.
Ford contended that liability rested with Boyle and the company that prepared the truck for market, Garden State Engine & Equipment Co. of Somerville, N.J., which added the bumper guard, a flatbed and a crane to the Ford F-800 chassis cab. The truck was leased by New Jersey Boom & Erector of Henryville, Pa.
During the March 2006 trial in Passaic County, the jury awarded $25 million for pain and suffering, $279,354 for past lost wages, $1.6 million for future lost wages, and $2,400 for medical bills, bringing the award to $26,881,754. Based on the jury's findings that 97.5 percent of the plaintiff's injuries were attributable to the defective bumper and 2.5 percent to the collision, the award was reduced by 2.5 percent, to $26,209,710.
The jury found Ford 70 percent liable and Garden State 30 percent liable. Garden State settled for an undisclosed amount after trial, and Ford moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial, or remittitur.
Superior Court Judge Christine Miniman granted only the motion for remittitur, reducing the award for pain and suffering to $15.5 million, which Boyle accepted. After the remittitur and subtraction of a 2.5 percent enhancement, the verdict totaled $16,947,210, of which Ford's 70 percent share was $11,863,047.
After the verdict, Ford appealed Miniman's denial of its pretrial motion to dismiss the plaintiff's cause of action against as a matter of law.
The appeals court, applying Zaza v. Marquess and Nell, Inc., 144 N.J. 34 (1996), found that the maker of a component part that is not in itself defective, and not dangerous until it is integrated into the larger system, is not strictly liable for injuries to users under the N.J. Products Liability Act.
"Consistent with industry practices and federal regulatory safety standards, the legal responsibility for installing the rear bumper guard must lie with the truck's final-stage manufacturer, because this entity is in the best position to determine the type of safety device needed," wrote Judge Jose Fuentes, joined by Judges Donald Coburn and Jane Grall.
"Given the multiple, unforeseen uses to which the F-800 could be put to by its ultimate end-user," it would be unreasonable to require Ford to install the rear guard device, Fuentes added.
The lawyer for Ford, Douglas Eakeley of Lowenstein Sandler in Roseland, N.J., says the decision "is consistent with the obligation of the final-stage manufacturer to ensure that appropriate safety devices are installed, and it's consistent with our Supreme Court's rulings that define liability of the final manufacturer."
The plaintiff's attorney, John North of Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis in Woodbridge, N.J., says he will seek certification from the Supreme Court.
North says the appeals court was wrong to apply Zaza because in this case, the truck chassis left Ford's factory and was driven on the road without any bumper guard, a dangerous condition. He says the appeals court should have applied another case, Michalko v. Cooke Color & Chem. Corp., 91 N.J. 386 (1982), which left it up to a jury to decide whether it's practical and feasible for a maker of a component part to add a safety device.
