43
Supreme Court to rule on Austintown officer’s legal action against Ford
By Marc Kovac
COLUMBUS
The state’s high court will determine if an Austintown officer can move forward with legal proceedings against Ford Motor Co. after a crash-induced fire that caused him significant burns.
The Ohio Supreme Court must decide whether to side with an appeals court decision and remand the case to a trial court for further consideration or with the trial court, which favored the automaker.
Tuesday’s oral arguments focused on the November 2007 accident in which a 1995 Cadillac DeVille, driven by Adrien Foutz at a speed of about 100 mph, slammed into the back of Austintown police Officer Ross Linert’s 2005 Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor, moving at a speed of about 35 mph along North Meridian Road near Interstate 680, according to court filings.
Foutz “did not brake or swerve before striking Mr. Linert’s vehicle and admitted responsibility for the accident,” according to documents.
Linert suffered severe burns, with 60 percent to 70 percent of his skin injured from an “intense gasoline-fed fire,” according to documents. The collision also broke his ribs.
Linert later filed suit against Ford Motor Co., alleging the cruiser was defective and the company failed to provide warning of potential fuel-system defects.
Ford countered that its cruisers hold high safety ratings, with “the most rigorous” impact-crash-testing program in the world.
A Mahoning County jury sided with Ford. An appeals court affirmed most of the lower-court ruling, but it ordered a new trial that would focus on whether the company should have warned officers about potential dangers related to vehicle fuel tanks.
Legal counsel for Linert argued the trial court erroneously excluded evidence of Ford’s development of a fire-suppression system for its cruisers.
Ford, however, said in court flings the accident in the case was a “massive collision” that was “‘substantially more severe’ than Ford’s 75 mph crash tests.”
Robert Schmieder II, legal counsel for Linert, told justices there is evidence that Ford knew of issues with the placement of gas tanks in its cruisers, citing a half dozen center-unit failures after the tanks were manufactured.
Justices noted the jury in the case determined the car’s design was not defective, however.
“We’re talking not about the manufacturing defect,” said Justice Terrence O’Donnell. “We’re focused on the post-marketing failure to warn.”
But Schmieder said the company had an obligation to warn vehicle owners about the fire risk.
Elizabeth Wright, representing Ford, said that Ford’s efforts to improve its fuel tank and other designs and manufacturing processes aren’t admissions of defects in the company’s products.