— A Ford Super Duty truck roof collapse lawsuit resulted in a $2.5 billion jury verdict, but Ford has told a Georgia federal judge a new trial should be granted following the "stratospheric verdict."
The Ford roof collapse wrongful death lawsuit involves the case of Debra and Herman Mills who were killed in a violent crash of their 2015 Ford F-250 Super Crew 4x4 King Ranch truck. Debra Mills, 64, was driving in August 2022 with her husband, Herman Mills, 74, riding in the passenger seat.
Mills lost control of the Super Duty which caused the truck to travel onto the right shoulder, hit a drainage culvert and travel about 80 feet through the air. The truck slammed into the ground and landed upside down.
Family members sued Ford by alleging the couple wouldn't have been killed if the Ford Super Duty truck roof hadn't collapsed. And according to the lawsuit, the roof collapsed because Ford sold Super Duty trucks with weak and defective roofs.
The Mills jury was told not only was the Ford F-250 Super Duty roof defective, but so are more than 5 million Ford Super Duty trucks from 1996 to 2016.
The jury returned a verdict against Ford for the amount of $2.5 billion.
The Mills case in Georgia followed a similar case in Georgia (Hill v. Ford) involving a different Ford Super Duty roof collapse rollover crash that killed a husband and wife.
In the Voncile and Melvin Hill wrongful death lawsuit, the jury returned a $1.7 billion verdict against Ford by finding the 2002 Ford F-250 Super Duty roof collapsed because it was defective.
Ford appealed the $1.7 billion jury award and the Court of Appeals of Georgia wiped out the verdict and granted Ford a new trial. But according to Ford, the $2.5 billion Mills verdict "can be traced directly to the now-vacated Hill verdict."
Ford Seeks New Super Duty Roof Collapse Trial (Brogdon v. Ford)
Ford filed a motion for a new trial in the Mills F-250 truck crash case by noting how the $2.5 million verdict occurred just months after the Georgia appeals court vacated the $1.7 billion verdict in Hill v. Ford.
According to Ford, it deserves a new trial because there were jurors in the Mills case who told other jurors about the $1.7 billion Hill v. Ford verdict, something the judge warned against. Ford says “beyond a shadow of a doubt there was an influence” on the Mills jurors when they learned about the Hill lawsuit verdict.
"This extraneous information unfairly prejudiced Ford; requires a full evidentiary examination by the Court; and—based on the information Ford has received from jurors—necessitates a new trial for Ford." — Ford's motion for a new trial
In Ford's motion for a new Super Duty roof collapse trial, Ford presents evidence in the form of voicemail and text messages regarding the jury's $2.5 billion verdict.
According to Ford, at 4:41 p.m. on the day of the verdict, juror number 36 called the office of an attorney representing Ford in the case and left a message.
Juror 36 said they believed the foreperson and juror number 52 knew of the verdict against Ford in the Hill v. Ford case during deliberations of phase I of the case dealing with liability and compensatory damages in the Mills case.
Juror 36 also allegedly told Ford's attorney that during phase II deliberations on punitive damages, the foreperson and juror 52 brought to the jury’s attention that the punitive damages verdict against Ford in the Hill v. Ford case was $1.7 billion.
And during the discussion of the $1.7 billion verdict in the Hill v. Ford case, a comment was allegedly made which said, “this could be a record breaker.”
"The only thing I have follow up on from earlier would be; and I think the way the question was phrased was : Do I think there was any influence on this verdict because of what others knew and provided with the other jurors in response to the previous verdicts (ie: Hill case) and monetary amounts awarded: I will tell you now that my sworn testimony would be. Yes beyond a shadow of doubt there was an influence, based on what I heard and witnessed in that juror room." — Text message from juror 36 to Ford's attorney
The automaker argues the "poisonous influence of the Hill verdict likely explains why the jury found that alleged 'roof crush' injuries caused Plaintiffs’ deaths on a record that establishes just the opposite."
Ford Argues Collapsed Truck Roof Did Not Kill Couple
Ford argues the collapsed Ford Super Duty roof is not what killed Mr. and Mrs. Mills. Ford says the evidence shows Mrs. Mills suffered a sudden cardiac event immediately before she allowed the truck to run off the road and "plummet nose-down at a speed of nearly 50 miles per hour before pitching over" and crushing the roof.
Ford also alleges the couple suffered physical injuries consistent with a violent frontal impact, not from a collapsed truck roof.
"[N]either Mr. nor Mrs. Mills experienced any serious physical injuries from the roof of the truck allegedly crushing down on them after the frontal impact." — Ford
In Fords motion for a new trial, the automaker claims the "contaminating influence of the Hill verdict" caused the jury’s record-breaking $2.5 billion punitive damages verdict. Punitive damages are for one reason: to punish a company for severe wrongdoing, separate and beyond compensating a party for their losses.
Ford told the judge the Mills jury wrongfully punished Ford based on a different $1.7 billion roof collapse verdict that has been thrown out.
Ford argues if the judge does not grant a new Super Duty roof collapse trial, the court should "reduce the punitive damages award to the constitutional maximum of $4,675,000."
The Ford Super Duty roof collapse 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.
The plaintiffs are represented by Butler Prather LLP, and Page Scrantom Sprouse Tucker & Ford, P.C.