Products Liability Law Reporter

Breanna Bumgarner was driving a 2014 Ford Mustang on a highway when Anna Errickson, who was traveling in the opposite direction, inadvertently drove off the highway, overcorrected, crossed the centerline, and collided with the Mustang. The impact ruptured the car’s brake fluid reservoir, leading to a car fire in the engine compartment. Bumgarner remained trapped in her vehicle as the fire spread to the passenger compartment. She died in the fire and is survived by her mother.

Bumgarner’s mother sued Ford Motor Co., alleging claims for products liability; breach of an implied warranty; negligence; and willful, wanton, and reckless misconduct. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant knowingly concealed information about the Mustang’s fire hazard and failed to address the defect or provide adequate safety measures to protect the driver compartment in the event of a fire. Although Errickson’s negligence had led to the crash, the plaintiff argued, Bumgarner’s death resulted from the post-crash car fire caused by the defendant’s defective vehicle, which lacked a firewall. Suit also alleged negligence against Errickson.

The jury awarded $7 million, apportioning liability at 99% to Ford Motor Co. and 1% to Errickson.

Citation: Tyler v. Ford Motor Co., No. 18-C-182 (W.Va. Cir. Ct. Kanawha Cty. May 17, 2022).

Plaintiff counsel: Graham Esdale and Mike Andrews, both of Montgomery, Ala.; Preston Moore, Atlanta; and Danny Cline and Brian Bigelow, both of Charleston, W. Va.

Comment: See also Guijarro v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc., 39 F.4th 309 (5th Cir. 2022), which involved a family injured when their rented Jeep SUV tumbled into a ditch. They sued EAN Holdings, the owner and operator of the Enterprise Rent-A-Car location where the Jeep was rented, alleging the defendant knew or should have known that the Jeep’s brakes were in a defective and unsafe condition. The court granted summary judgment for the defense, finding that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the applicable expert requirement in that the only proof of a defect they offered was lay testimony that the car would not stop when the driver applied the brakes. Affirming, the Fifth Circuit held that Texas law requires plaintiffs alleging a brake defect to put forth competent expert testimony and objective proof that the defect led to their injuries.