Daniel Perez v. Yamaha Motor Corporation USA (West Palm Beach, FL)

On June 9, 2011, a Florida state court determined that Yamaha Motor Corporation USA was responsible for a 2005 WaveRunner accident near Currie Park that killed the plaintiff’s 14 year-old daughter Jaysell Perez and gravely injured then 15 year-old teenager, Samantha Archer. The jury awarded the plaintiffs $35 million. $19 million went to the parents of Jaysell Perez and $16 million went to 21-year old Samantha Archer, who was 15 at the time of the accident.

On May 5, 2011, Ivonne and Daniel Perez, parents of Jaysell Perez, walked to the Palm Beach County courtroom to begin Day 1 of their 6-week trial against Yamaha with millions of dollars at stake and the memory of their 14 year-old daughter, Jaysell, on their minds.

Attorney Robert Baker (Baker & Zimmerman) asked the jury to remember throughout the case that two subsidiaries of Yamaha of Japan, Yamaha Motor Corporation USA and Yamaha Motor Manufacturing Corporation, “buried their heads in the sand like ostriches instead of listening to their engineers” warn them about design defects inherent in the product that later killed 14 year-old Jaysell Perez and injured then 15 year-old Samantha Archer. Robert Baker accused Yamaha Motor Corporation USA of failing to correct steering problems with the water scooter and failing to warn users of its foreseeable and known hazards.

Baker emphasized the years it took Yamaha to figure out how to make sure that its operators could steer its WaveRunner when the throttle was released (off-throttle steering). Jaysell Perez and Samantha Archer plowed into a boat after Samatha Perez took her hand off of the throttle to turn the water scooter.

Representing the defendants, Richard Mueller (Thompson Coburn), said that this case was about “two inexperienced children who were let loose illegally on the waterways during a holiday weekend.” He portrayed Samantha Archer as someone who was negligent in her use of the WaveRunner. According to Mr. Mueller, Samantha Archer failed to release the vehicle’s throttle and also failed to look in front of her while steering the water scooter to avoid the collision. He stated that the steering apparatus on the WaveRunner was not defective in its design, and therefore was not responsible for the death of Jaysell Perez or the injuries suffered by Samantha Archer.

David Kleinberg (Neufeld, Kleinberg & Pinkiert) and Eric Ansel (Ansel, Bunsic & Miller) appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs and Carl Pesce (Thompson Coburn) and Scott Sarason (Thompson Coburn) appeared on behalf of the defendant.

Over six weeks, extensive expert testimony from both sides was presented, along with the testimony from the corporate heads of Yamaha of Japan and its subsidiaries. Gavel-to-gavel coverage is available from Courtroom View Network. 

CVN webcast Daniel Perez v. Yahama Motor Corporation USA live. 

The defense took a complete victory in Scheer v. Ford. Plaintiff Patricia Scheer claimed that leg and neck injuries resulted from a design defect in the 1999 Mercury Mountaineer’s seat back.

According to plaintiff attorney Thomas Christensen, Ford “knowingly chose a design that allows the occupant to slide up the seat back into the back seat area, then slide forward under the seat belt into the dash area without restraint, causing severe injuries…”

“In this case, Ford claims  the seat acted exactly as Ford engineers knew it would. Not one piece of evidence showing that design has been shown to you…We haven’t seen any blueprints. We haven’t seen one letter from some Ford engineer saying, ‘I know — we’ll make this design this way.’ That’s because this is a post-injury design that Ford has come up with.”

“They did know it would break, however, because they’ve done a bunch of tests and knew that these seats break…those tests also the jury has not seen.”

“As a result of this so-called ‘good design,’ Patricia was severely injured, and in just the way that tests showed that the weak seat could be expected to injure her — that is, dumping her into the back seat, and then having her slide into the front seat. The dumping into the back seat causes her to be unable to control her vehicle and keep it from colliding with anything in front of her. The defendant could have prevented this from happening if it had chosen to put their stronger seat in the vehicle — a seat that they had.”

On Ford’s behalf, Snell & Wilmer’s Jay Schuttert claimed that the seat was not defectively designed, and in any case did not cause Ms. Scheer’s injuries. Mr. Schuttert reminded the jury that one of the expert witnesses had characterized the Mountaineer’s seat strength as “about average, middle of the road,” and it was three times stronger than the federal requirement.

According to Mr. Schuttert, the seat behaved as was reasonably expected. It did not break, snap or collapse — it yielded as it was designed to do. Mr. Schuttert pointed out that the plaintiff’s expert’s design philosophy, which would have called for much stronger seats, was at odds with the entire auto industry and the federal government.

Moreover, said Mr. Schuttert, the seat did not cause Ms. Scheer’s neck injury because she was not, in fact, thrown into the back seat, nor did she slide forward under the belt, as the plaintiff claimed. Instead, her neck injury and leg injuries resulted from the force of the impact, not the seat’s behavior. Finally, Ms. Scheer’s injuries resulting from the crash were “minor,” and she had “all kinds of degenerative injuries” that she was trying to pin on Ford.

“The last thing in the world Ms. Scheer would have wanted in this crash would have been a stiffer seat,” said Mr. Schuttert, “because it would have exposed her to additional and more serious injuries…and…any claim that Ford should have given a different or additional warning with the Mountaineer is sort of silly, since…after the crash Ms. Scheer just went out and bought another 1999 Mercury Mountaineer.” Mr. Schuttert concluded that if Ms. Scheer really thought the Mountaineer was defective she “would have avoided that product like the bubonic plague and bought something different.”

The jury found in favor of the defendant.

CVN webcast Scheer v. Ford live, gavel-to-gavel. Snell & Wilmer won another Ford defective seat case last year in Sorci v. Ford. In Wheeler v. Ford, Butler Wooten, and Fryhofer’s James Butler recovered $17M+ for injuries resulting from a Ford Explorer’s defective rear seat protection system. Watch all three cases on CVN.

CVN webcast opening statements in Patricia Scheer v. Ford, a defective automobile seat case.

According to plaintiff attorney Thomas Christensen, of Christensen Law, Scheer’s 1999 Mercury Mountaineer was rear-ended while Scheer was stopped at a red light. The force of the rear-end collision allegedly collapsed Scheer’s seat, sending her backwards. Scheer was then suddenly thrust forward when Scheer’s vehicle struck the GMC Yukon in front of her.

Christensen asserted that when Ford was designing the Mercury Mountaineer, it used two seat designs: one that would withstand a moderate-speed rear-end collision, and one that would not. Ford chose for the Mountaineer the seat that would collapse, said Christensen, which resulted in Scheer’s severe injuries.

One of Scheer’s injuries was a cut to her leg, which became infected with an antibiotic resistant bacteria. Scheer required maggot therapy — the intentional introduction of maggots into the wound to clean out only the necrotic (dead) tissue.

Christensen said that Scheer’s medical bills exceeded $400K, and that the evidence would require him to request $10M in general damages at the end of trial.

Representing Ford, Snell Wilmer’s Jay Schuttert, said “There’s not much that Ford agrees with the plaintiff about.” According to Schuttert, the blame had to be assigned to the “careless driver,” Asa Funderburke, who struck Scheer’s vehicle.

According to Schuttert, Scheer’s seat did not collapse or break, but properly yielded to protect the occupant in the event of a rear-impact. If the seat had not yielded, said Schuttert, Scheer would have suffered even worse injuries.

Ford was not responsible, Scheer concluded, because the Mercury Mountaineer’s seat was safe, well-tested, exceeded every government standard (including FMVSS 207), and performed as intended in the crash.

Watch CVN’s live webcast of Scheer v. Ford.

Moreno v. Ford, one of many pending cases involving defective Firestone tires on Ford Explorers, resulted in an $18M+ jury verdict for the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs alleged that a tire retailer, American Tire Depot, had negligently installed a 12 year-old defective spare tire on the plaintiff’s vehicle.  American Tire Depot conceded that they do not check every tire for recalls, but said that they would not have rotated the spare into service, so someone else must have done it. 

The jury awarded just over $5M, $3.5M, and $0.5M, to three family members injured in the crash, and $9M in wrongful death damages to the parents of an 11 year-old child killed in the crash.

The jury assigned 85% fault to American Tire Depot, 15% fault to Bridgestone/Firestone, and 0% to Ford and to the driver of the vehicle that overturned.

CVN webcast this Firestone Tire trial live, and it is available for replay on-demand. 

Although many Firestone-Ford Explorer cases are pending before Judge Anthony Mohr in Los Angeles, Moreno v. Ford has actually gone to trial. 

The accident in Moreno v. Ford occurred on May 24, 2006, when a 12 year-old Firestone Radial ATX Tire suffered a tread separation or a belt separation that precipitated a fatal accident.  The Ford Explorer slid off the road and rolled over multiple times.  Although all of the vehicle occupants were wearing safety belts, 11 year-old William Moreno suffered massive head trauma and died.

According to the plaintiff, the defective tire was a spare tire that had been in the vehicle since 1994, and was negligently rotated into service in January, 2006, by American Tire Depot, even though the tire had been recalled.

According to the defense, road conditions were optimal for handling a tire separation emergency, and the driver could have safely stopped the vehicle without leaving the road, but instead turned the wheel right, which was an unsafe turning maneuver.

In addition, the defense asserted that the William Moreno suffered a fatal head injury due to a failure of the Ford seatbelt system. 

This Firestone Tire and Ford Explorer Trial against American Tire Depot is being webcast live by CVN.