Litigation

Clouded Crystal Ball Department

By Bruce Nye

Yesterday, I spoke on the telephone with a lawyer I know in Indiana.  He went to law school about the same time I did (back when the earth was cooling) and he was commenting that when he was in law school, they'd read the cases on a particular issue, he'd think he understood the applicable law, and then they'd get to the case on California, where things were always, ah, well,  different . . . .

And in that regard, let us review the long and winding road of Barry and Benetta Buell-Wilson's litigation against Ford Motor Company, arising out of her 2002 catastrophic rollover accident in January, 2002:

June, 2004:  San Diego Superior Court jury awards the Buell-Wilsons  $122.6 million in compensatory damages and $246 million in punitive damages.

On post-trial motions, the trial court reduces this to a mere $75 million in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages.

In July, 2006, the Court of Appeal affirms the finding of liability, but reduces compensatory damages to approximately $27.6 million and punitive damages to $55 million.  Buell Wilson v. Ford Motor Co., Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 525.   In August, that court denies rehearing.  Buell Wilson v. Ford Motor Co., Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1421b.

Ford petitions the California Supreme Court for review, and this petition is denied in November, 2006.  Ford petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari.  The U.S. Supreme Court issued a "GVR" order, granting certiorari, vacating the judgment, and remanding the case for reconsideration in light of Phillip Morris USA v. Williams (2007) 549 US ___ (127 S.Ct. 1057) (now known as "Williams I," as "Williams II" is presently before that court).

As discussed in CalBizLit here, and a whole bunch of other places, the Court of Appeal said "reconsider?  sure, we'll reconsider, and we'll come right back with exactly the same decision."  Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Company (2008) ___ Cal.App.4th___ (Fourth App. Dist. D045154, D045579).

    That astute observer of the legal scene Bruce Nye at CalBizLIt commented at the time: 

"This may be the end of the road for Ford.  The 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, nice prognosticating.  Except it's 180 degrees wrong.  The Cal Supremes have granted review, and here's the statement of issues for decision:

(1) What procedural protections are required by Philip Morris USA v. Williams (2007) 549 U.S. __, 127 S.Ct. 1057, which held that due process requires that a jury not award punitive damages to punish for harm to third parties; and under what circumstances can those constitutional rights be deemed forfeited? (2) Are punitive damages prohibited in product liability cases where the manufacturer's design conforms to governmental safety standards and industry standards and custom, and there is a "genuine debate" about what the law requires? (2) Is the amount of the punitive damage award in this case unconstitutionally excessive and arbitrary?

The Supremes have put the case on hold pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Williams II.

Full post as published by CalBizLit on July 17, 2008 (boomark / email).