Paralyzed Mother Allowed to Keep $82.6 Million in Ford Case

By Sophia Brink

Published on March 14, 2008

The ruling by San Diego’s 4th District Court of Appeal followed an order by the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider an earlier decision.

In its decision to remand the case, the Supreme Court cited Philip Morris USA v. Williams, which said that jurors cannot consider harm to third parties when determining punitive damages.

After the original trial, jurors decided in favor of the plaintiff, Benetta Buell-Wilson. Buell-Wilson had claimed that the Explorer’s design defects were responsible for the vehicle’s rollover.

Jurors agreed with Buell-Wilson’s lawyers that Ford ignored the Explorer’s design defects - defects that were originally recognized in the Bronco II. These defects allegedly have been responsible for many injuries and deaths.

Ford attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr. of the Los Angeles firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher disagreed with the appellate court’s ruling, claiming that it is inconsistent with that of the Philip Morris case.

Jerome Falk Jr., a partner with the San Francisco-based firm that represented Buell-Wilson, supported the appellate court’s decision. He said he hopes that the ruling will induce positive change in the automobile industry.

A representative from Ford could not be reached for comment.