Ford is filing a lawsuit to annul the massive $2.5 billion verdict in a roof safety case.
The automaker claims that jurors were aware of an earlier $1.7 billion verdict against the company.
It is possible that they were not aware that Ford managed to overturn this verdict.
Automakers are known for their vigilance regarding their image, especially when billions of dollars are at stake. Ford is no exception, and at the moment they are aggressively defending their reputation in a Georgia court following a record verdict in February. The jury awarded the Miller family $2.5 billion, finding Ford responsible for the deaths of two Super Duty truck owners.
Fatal Event
The deceased owners, Herman and Debra Miller, tragically died after the vehicle they were in rolled over, resulting in a roof collapse. The Miller family claims that Ford knew that the roofs on Super Duty trucks — manufactured between 1999 and 2016 — were structurally insufficient, but they continued to sell them. The trial jury apparently agreed with this, as the verdict was in favor of the plaintiffs.
It awarded the Miller family $2.5 billion in compensation, and now Ford wants to annul this verdict. The company claims that on the day of the verdict, one of the jurors called Ford’s legal team to express outrage. He said he believed that at least two people on the jury knew about the previous $1.7 billion verdict against Ford in a very similar case.
In the case, Hill v. Ford, it was about a similar situation where a Ford vehicle’s roof crushed during an accident, leading to a person’s death. Despite the judge clearly instructing the jurors to avoid discussing the previous case, they likely ignored this order. During deliberations in the Miller case, one of the jurors apparently noted: “This could be a record-size.”
According to , not only did the juror call, but also sent the following message to Ford’s legal counsel:
“The only thing I want to highlight is: do I believe the verdict was influenced by other jurors’ awareness and the information they provided about previous verdicts (e.g., in the Hill case) and the amounts awarded: I will tell you now, my sworn testimony would be. Yes, there was undoubtedly influence based on what I heard and saw in that jury room.” (Text message from Juror 36 to Ford’s legal counsel).
Ford’s Argument
In light of this, Ford claims that “the poisonous influence of the Hill decision likely explains why the jury concluded that the alleged minor roof damage did not cause the plaintiffs’ deaths in the context of a record indicating the opposite.”
The company further asserts that although it is tragic, the roof collapse was not the main cause of the Miller couple’s deaths. Ford is now requesting either a new trial or a reduction in damages to a constitutional maximum of $4,675,000.