—
The drama of a Ford truck roof collapse lawsuit that led to a $2.5 billion jury verdict is still being played out as Ford seeks a new trial based on allegedly new evidence.
The $2.5 billion verdict was reached in a lawsuit which alleges a Georgia couple, Debra and Herman Mills, were killed in a violent rollover crash of a 2015 Ford F-250 Super Duty truck. The Ford roof collape lawsuit alleged Ford went cheap on the Super Duty roof which caused it to collapse in the crash.
Following the jury verdict, Ford claimed it had evidence of problems with the jurors and deserved a new wrongful death lawsuit trial. The judge convinced the parties to work with a mediator regarding the claims.
But according to the plaintiffs, it appears Ford terminated the mediation after the automaker told the court mediation was “unsuccessful.” But the plaintiffs argue they have not terminated the mediation and neither has the mediator.
However, that’s not the biggest issue because according to the plaintiffs, Ford has broken the rules by trying to make new arguments for a new trial regarding “extraneous information.” The plaintiffs claim briefing closed on Ford’s motion for a new trial months ago.
Ford’s deadline to file a motion for new trial was allegedly March 14, 28 days after the court entered the judgment in this $2.5 billion case. The plaintiffs claim if Ford had evidence to provide the court, Ford was required to provide the evidence with the motion for a new trial.
According to Ford, it has “tape recordings” with a juror or jurors involved with the $2.5 billion jury verdict. Apparently the recordings allegedly indicate a previous $1.7 billion roof collapse verdict may have played a role during jury deliberations, something the judge warned against.
The $1.7 billion Ford Super Duty roof collapse verdict was later wiped out and Ford was granted a new trial.
But the plaintiffs argue Ford was required to submit the subject of tape recordings when it filed for a new roof collapse trial. In addition, the plaintiffs assert what Ford says it did is against the rules.
“But even if Ford had timely provided these supposed recordings to the Court with its motion or even with its reply brief, the recordings would have been irrelevant. ‘A recording [of a juror] does not have the force of a sworn testimony or a sworn testimony.’ A recording is just hearsay.” — Lawyers for the plaintiffs
There are allegedly no rules that require a trial court to investigate the internal workings of the jury if a defendant asserts juror misconduct.
Ford would allegedly need to provide “clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence that a specific, nonspeculative impropriety has occurred,” but the plaintiffs argue Ford fails in its purpose.
A post-trial hearsay recording of a juror allegedly “does not come close to meeting this standard.”
The plaintiffs argue there are many reasons why the judge should reject Ford’s request to consider Ford’s alleged post-trial recordings of jurors. The plaintiffs contend a court cannot receive evidence like recordings that Ford’s lawyers and investigators allegedly made of juror conversations.
According to the plaintiffs, the court cannot “receive” such recordings. “Once that bell is rung, it cannot be unrung.”
The Ford Super Duty roof lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia (Columbus Division): James Edward (Dusty) Brogdon, Jr., v. Ford Motor Company.