National Verdicts

Driver blamed car’s design defect for
injuries in crash

Amount:

$14,967,421

Type:

Verdict-Plaintiff

State:

California

Venue:

Alameda
County

Court:

Superior
Court of
Alameda County,
Alameda

Injury Type(s):

back-fracture (fracture, L5);
back-fusion, lumbar;
back-fracture, vertebra (fracture, L5);
back-cauda equina syndrome;
head;
neck-fusion, cervical;
brain-traumatic brain injury;
chest-fracture, rib;
other-sutures;
other-laceration;
other-catheterization;
other-physical therapy;
other-compression fracture;
neurological-neurological impairment (arachnoiditis);
mental/psychological-depression;
mental/psychological-emotional distress;
mental/psychological-cognition (memory, impairment);
paralysis/quadriplegia-paraplegia;
paralysis/quadriplegia-paralysis, partial

Case Type:

Motor Vehicle – Rear-ender, Multiple Impact, Multiple
Vehicle; Products Liability – Automobiles, Design Defect, Crashworthiness

Case Name:

Marcia
Gray and Donald Gray v. Jose M. Tolbert Alfresco,
Mazda Motor of America, Inc., and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, No. RG14723293

Date:

April 1,
2016

Parties

Plaintiff(s):

Donald Gray
(Male),

Marcia Gray
(Female, 39 Years)

Plaintiff Attorney(s):

Craig M. Peters;
The Veen Firm, P.C.;
San Francisco, CA,
for Donald Gray, Marcia
Gray ■
David L. Winnett; The
Veen Firm, P.C.; San
Francisco, CA,
for Donald Gray, Marcia
Gray

Plaintiff Expert(s):

Alex Barchuk, M.D.; Physical
Medicine; Kentfield,
CA
called by: Craig M. Peters,
David L. Winnett ■
Tracy Albee, P.H.N., B.S.N., R.N.
; Life Care Planning; Tracy,
CA
called by: Craig M. Peters,
David L. Winnett ■
Joseph Burton, M.D.; Injury
Biomechanics; Alpharetta,
GA
called by: Craig M. Peters,
David L. Winnett ■
Robert Johnson, M.B.A.; Economics;
Los
Altos, CA
called by: Craig M. Peters,
David L. Winnett ■
Steven Meyer, P.E.; Design;
Goleta,
CA
called by: Craig M. Peters,
David L. Winnett ■
Fernando Miranda, M.D.; Neurology;
San
Francisco, CA
called by: Craig M. Peters,
David L. Winnett

Defendant(s):

Jose M. Tolbert Alfresco,

Mazda Motor of America
Inc.

Defense Attorney(s):

Patrick J. Becherer;
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer;
Emeryville,
CA,
for Mazda Motor of America Inc. ■

Emily D. Bergstrom; Becherer,
Kannett & Schweitzer; Emeryville,
CA,
for Mazda Motor of America Inc. ■

None reported;
for Jose M. Tolbert Alfresco

Defendant Expert(s):

Edward Moffatt;
Biomechanics; Orinda,
CA
called by: Patrick J. Becherer,
Emily D. Bergstrom ■ Gregory
Stephens; Accident
Reconstruction; Gig
Harbor, WA
called by: Patrick J. Becherer,
Emily D. Bergstrom

Insurer(s):

Tokio Marine and
Fire Insurance Co. Ltd. for Mazda Motor of America Inc.

Facts:

On April 30, 2012, plaintiff Marcia Gray, 39, a legal
researcher, was driving a 1995 Mazda Protege west on Interstate 580, near I-980
west, in Oakland.
Gray, driving in the left lane, stopped suddenly after seeing traffic accidents
ahead. She was rear-ended by a 1997 Chevrolet Cheyenne pickup truck.

According to Gray’s counsel, the collision caused her seat to collapse
backward, and the back of her head was struck by the intruding metal caused by
the impact from the pickup truck. Her seat-back was crushed in half as a result
of the rear intrusion. The rear-end impact forced her car forward and it hit
the rear of a Ford Ranger pickup truck ahead of her. The Ranger struck another
vehicle and flipped over in the right lane. Grays injuries were to her head,
brain, spine, and ribs, and resulted in partial paraplegia.

Gray sued Mazda Motor of America Inc., alleging several claims under theories
of strict liability and negligence. At trial, plaintiffs’ counsel proceeded
solely with a design-defect claim based on the "consumer expectation"
test.

Gray had also sued the driver of the pickup truck that had rear-ended her, Jose
Tolbert Alfresco. Gray
alleged that Alfresco was
negligent for speeding and for failing to avoid the rear-end collision.
However, Alfresco did not
appear at trial and was found in default.

Regarding the claims against Mazda, Gray’s counsel specifically asserted that
the design defect caused the driver’s seat-back to collapse backward when struck
from behind and a change in velocity of 19 miles per hour occurs. Counsel
maintained that Mazda was aware of the seat-back’s defect, which took her out
of the vehicle’s operator safety zone.

According to Gray’s counsel, the driver’s seat had, on the left side, a
standard gear, or mechanism, for adjusting the seat-back. On the seat’s right
side, a pin held the seat in place. A pin, while a common design aspect of many
cars, provides less stability than would a second gear mechanism placed on the
right side of the driver’s seat. A second gear-mechanism is used in some
higher-end cars for added stability.

Gray’s accident-reconstruction expert testified that the seat-back gave way
once the Mazda’s change in velocity reached 19 mph, which caused Gray to ramp
up out of her seat and out of the safety zone. Gray’s counsel contended that a
reasonable consumer would not expect that a seat would collapse under these
circumstances.

Gray’s biomechanical expert confirmed that excessive forward-bending of Gray’s
torso from the crushing of the seat-back was the cause of her spinal injuries.

Gray’s counsel argued that Mazda was aware of the seat’s lack of stability and
entered into evidence video footage from an April 1995 crash test which, it was
argued, demonstrated the seat’s defect.

Counsel for Mazda denied liability, maintaining that the seat was intentionally
allowed to move, or give, on impact, lessening harm to the driver, and the seat
performed as designed. The high force of the impact was beyond what the design
was reasonably capable of withstanding.

Mazda further claimed there had been two successive rear-end impacts from the
pickup truck behind her, and it was the second impact that had caused the metal
to strike Gray and caused her injuries.

The company’s accident reconstruction expert denied that the seat-back reclined
to the extent alleged by Gray’s counsel. He concluded that Mazda’s safety
engineers could not have foreseen this specific occurrence. Mazda’s
biomechanical expert testified that the force of the impact was to blame for
Gray’s injuries, not the failure of her seat.

Injury:

Gray was removed from her vehicle by hydraulic rescue
tools, because of extensive car damage. She was brought by ambulance to the
trauma ward of a local hospital. She was treated for a 20-centimeter laceration
to the back of her head, which required sutures, and she was diagnosed with 13
rib fractures and a compression burst fracture of vertebra L5, which was later
found to have resulted in adhesive arachnoiditis. She was also diagnosed with
cauda equina syndrome, resulting from the damage to the nerves at the base of
her spine. She was hospitalized for a month and a half and underwent a
two-level lumbar-spine fusion at L4-5 and L5-S1 and in-patient rehabilitation.
Following her release, Gray underwent several months of out-patient physical
therapy.

During her initial hospitalization, Gray received pain management and continues
to treat for severe pain. She has constant and debilitating pain below her
waist. She is considered an incomplete paraplegic and requires use of a cane or
wheelchair to ambulate. She also requires use of a catheter.

Gray was unable to work for six months, and returned to work out of financial
necessity. She often works remotely. Her condition prevents her from performing
any significant household chores and has impacted her marital relationship.

Gray sought damages for loss of earning capacity and for past and future
medical expenses. Her husband, Donald Gray, brought a claim for loss of
consortium.

Gray’s expert neurologist confirmed her permanent nerve damage, brain injury,
and pain symptoms.

Gray’s life-care planning expert testified that she believes her injuries will
worsen over time, based on conversations with Gray’s treating physicians. She
opined that she will require in-home care, increasing pain medication, and
relocation to an apartment that can accommodate her disability.

Gray’s retained economist projected her future life-care costs at $5,242,716.
He calculated her past medical expenses at $426,965.

Counsel for Mazda disputed the value of Gray’s future lost earning capacity,
arguing that there was no way to accurately predict Gray’s future earnings as
an attorney.

Result:

The jury found that the car-seat was defectively
designed under the "consumer expectation" theory and that the seat’s
failure was a substantial factor in causing Gray’s injuries.

Mazda was held 55 percent responsible and Alfresco
was held 45 percent responsible.

Gray was compensated $8,967,421 in economic damages and $5 million in
non-economic damages.

Under California
law, the defendants are severally liable for the non-economic damages;
therefore, Mazda would be responsible for 55 percent of the $5 million
non-economic damages award. However, the defendants are jointly and severally
liable for economic damages.

Gray was compensated a total of $13.9 million in damages. Her husband was
compensated $1 million in damages for his loss of consortium claim.

Mazda was also liable for 55 percent of Donald Gray’s $1 million award for loss
of consortium.

Donald Gray:

$1,000,000 Personal Injury: Future Loss Of Consortium;

Marcia Gray:

$8,967,421 Personal Injury: economic damages;

$5,000,000 Personal Injury: non-economic damages

Trial
Information:

Judge:

Dennis Hayashi

Demand:

$3.5
million

Offer:

$12,500

Trial Length:

10 days

Trial Deliberations:

2.5 days

Jury Vote:

10-2 on
liability apportionment

Post Trial:

Counsel
for the Grays claimed entitlement to costs.

Editor’s
Comment:

This report is based on
information that was provided by plaintiffs’ counsel. Defense counsel declined
to contribute.