Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> CalBizLit
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Litigation
: CalBizLitFord's Petition for Review in Buell-Wilson Punitive Damages Case
By Bruce Nye
I blogged in March, here, on the Court of Appeals' decision in Buell-Wilson v. Ford (2008) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Fourth Dist., D045154). There, after the Cal Supremes remanded so the court could take another look at the $55 million punitive damage award, the court of appeals did. And affirmed it again. I looked in my crystal ball at the time, and wrote that this might be the end of the road for Ford, because "[t]he Court of Appeal seems to have set up enough procedural obstacles that the Supremes won?t get involved unless they really, really, really are determined to slap down excessive punitive damages awards." Well, we'll find out. Not unexpectedly, Ford has petitioned the California Supreme Court yet again. The California Supremes do not accept cases to correct error: instead, under California Rules of Court, rule 8.500(b)(1), that court generally grants review in civil cases "When necessary to secure uniformity of decision or to settle an important question of law."
Ford is contending that both reasons are present here. Interestingly, its third basis for requesting review has to do with proffered evidence of government and industry standards and custom and practice in this product liability suit. While Ford's immediate quarrel is that the trial court excluded this evidence as irrelevant to the punitive damage claim, Ford seems to go farther, suggesting that if it conformed to such standards, customs and practices, punitive damages would be barred as a matter of law. The chances of ever establishing that proposition seem pretty slim, but if Ford ever carried this off, it would be about the biggest event in the California history of punitive damages / product liability jurisprudence.
Anyway, the Supreme Court has sixty days from April 28 in which to grant review, or ninety days if it grants itself an extension, so we'll know by this summer what the Court has in mind.
Full post as published by CalBizLit on May 08, 2008 (boomark / email).
Bextra Injury Risks
Bextra Increases Risk of Fatal Heart Attack
Ford Explorers
Ford Motor Co. agrees to give out $500 vouchers to SUV owners in class action settlement.
Environment Law
alleging damages from violation of the law.
FDA Issues Update on Safety Review Orlistat
Orlistat FDA Issues Update on Safety Review
Skilled Health Care Faces $670 Million in Damages over Nursing Home Violations
Skilled Health Care Faces $670 Million in Damages over Nursing Home Violations
Ministry of Defense
$500,000 in damages in transgender humiliation suit.
The Ministry of Defense
$500,000 in damages in transgender humiliation suit.

California Appellate Court Refuses to Change Its Ruling Against Ford
Be careful what you wish for when seeking rehearing: Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co.
Crippled San Diego Injury Victim Beats Ford Motor Co....Again (x5)
Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co. (Cal. Ct. App. - April 10, 2008)
$82.6 Million Award Upheld by Appeals Court in San Diego
Record San Diego Roll-Over Verdict To Be Reviewed....Again (x3)








