Products Liability Law Reporter

Chris Covelli was driving his 2019 Toyota Tundra D-cab pickup truck when the driver of a minivan allegedly failed to stop at a posted stop sign and crashed into the rear side of Covelli’s vehicle. He lost control of the Tundra, which rolled over and landed on its roof on an embankment next to the road. Covelli suffered cervical spine injuries that resulted in quadriplegia.

He and his wife sued Toyota Motor Corp. and others, alleging that the Tundra’s roof, occupant restraint system, and warnings were defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous. The plaintiffs asserted that the vehicle’s roof failed to provide adequate protection in the rollover collision and that the driver seat belt permitted excessive occupant excursion during the rollover. The plaintiffs also argued that the defendant did not test or evaluate the vehicle for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 216a, which identifies the minimum standard for roof crush performance in a rollover crash.

The jury awarded more than $42.9 million, finding the minivan driver 10% at fault. The award includes $5 million for loss of consortium.

Citation: Covelli v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 2021 CV 78 (Colo. Dist. Ct. Weld Cnty. Aug. 4, 2023).

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ members T. Thomas Metier and R. Todd Ingram, both of Fort Collins, Colo.; and Anthony P. Bolson, Denver, Colo.

Comment: In Leibfried v. Caterpillar, Inc., 2023 WL 7284795 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 3, 2023), Charles Leibfried died when the Caterpillar model 745C articulated dump truck he was driving rolled over. His wife, individually and on behalf of his estate, sued Caterpillar, Inc., alleging Leibfried’s death resulted from the defective design of the dump truck. The plaintiffs asserted that the truck’s rollover protection structure was defective because it collapsed when the dump truck rolled over. The defendant moved to exclude the expert testimony of Brian Herbst, who opined that the dump truck was defective and unreasonably dangerous because the design of its rollover protection structure allowed excessive intrusion in a low severity rollover. The district court denied the motion to exclude Herbst, concluding he was qualified by his knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. The defendant’s criticisms—including that the expert was not qualified to offer his opinions because most of his experience related to on-highway vehicles—go to the weight of Herbst’s opinions, not the reliability of his methodology, the court concluded. Nicholas DeStefanis and Ronald Harmeyer, both of Milwaukee, Wis., represented the plaintiffs.