. .

Invest in your success.
JVRA helps lawyers win cases by providing critical information you can use to establish precedent, determine demand and win arguments.



Broward County, FL

This was a product liability action brought against Ford Motor Company after the ________ Ford F-________ Super Cab pickup truck driven by the plaintiff rolled over and its roof was crushed. The plaintiff alleged that the vehicle contained a defective roof design system. The defendant denied that the vehicle was defective and denied that the plaintiff’s injuries were related to the roof crush.

On November 27, ________, the plaintiff was driving his ________ Ford F- ________ Super Cab pickup truck on Flamingo Road in Davie, Florida. While traveling on Flamingo Road, the plaintiff’s vehicle was struck in the rear by another vehicle. The impact, which the plaintiff contended was minor, caused the plaintiff to lose control of his truck and it ultimately rolled over.

The plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert testified that the rollover occurred off-road and the speed at the time of the rollover was 30-35 mph. The vehicle rolled approximately two to three times over a distance of approximately ________ feet. The plaintiff was fully seat belted at the time of the accident. The plaintiff alleged that he sustained neck injuries when the F- ________’s roof system failed, causing the roof to crush down on top of his head. The plaintiff alleged that the design of the ________ Ford F-________ Super Cab pickup truck’s roof system was defective.

The plaintiff contended that the defendant had made a conscious design decision to reduce the vehicle’s roof strength by approximately 21% from its original design strength. Additionally, evidence showed during the rollover the F-________’s windshield broke. The plaintiff claimed that it was known to the defendant that in a rollover, when the vehicle’s windshield breaks, the roof structure’s strength is diminished by 25%. As a result, the plaintiff claimed that during the plaintiff’s non- violent rollover, the roof strength from its original design had lost approximately 50% of its strength.

The plaintiff alleged that he sustained injuries, including loss of consciousness, closed head injury and a mild traumatic brain injury which has left him with concentration problems, memory deficits and focus difficulties. In addition, the plaintiff’s physician testified that the plaintiff suffered a cervical injury with disruption of the left lamina of C2. The plaintiff testified that he requires assistance with most things, as his right arm does not function well.

The plaintiff was 62 years age at the time of the accident and worked as an accountant. At the time of the accident he was earning $________ per year and was entering a drop retirement program. The plaintiff claimed that his accident-related injuries prevented him from returning to work as an accountant. The plaintiff’s economist estimated that the plaintiff’s loss of income, both past and future, to be $________. The plaintiff also claimed past medical expenses of $________.

The defendant argued that the roofing system of the truck was not defective and was designed to protect occupants in a foreseeable rollover. The defense contended that the roof system of the F-________ pickup truck was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Instead, the defendant argued that in a rollover accident, the occupant of the vehicle, through torso augmentation, "dives" towards the roof and is injured before any roof crush occurs. As a result, the defendant maintained that the severe roof crush that was seen in the truck played no part in the plaintiff’s injuries. In addition, the defendant argued that there was no objective evidence to support the plaintiff’s claim that he sustained a traumatic brain injury as a result of the accident.

The jury found that the F-________ was defective and awarded the plaintiff $________ in damages. The defendant’s post-trial motions are pending.

To read the full article, please login to your account or purchase

5 ways to win with JVRA

JVRA gives you jurisdiction-specific, year-round insight into the strategies, arguments and tactics that win. Successful attorneys come to the table prepared and use JVRA to:

  1. Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
  2. Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
  3. Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
  4. Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
  5. Defeat or support post-trial motions through past case histories.

Try JVRA for a day or a month, or sign up for our deluxe Litigation Support Plan and put the intelligence of JVRA to work for all of your clients. See our subscription plans.