Product liability cases show a strong defense trend in Arizona. Since 2011, Arizona juries have given ten defense verdicts and only one plaintiff’s verdict. That’s nearly 91% in favor of defendants over the last four years. There were no plaintiff’s verdicts in this area in 2012, 2013, 2014, or so far into 2015.
Here are all of the Arizona product liability verdicts over the past four years. All were defense verdicts except for the last one:
1. Ochoa-Valenzuela v. Ford Motor Company, United States District Court for the District of Arizona (2015). Veronica Ochoa-Valenzuela, a seat-belted right front passenger, was paralyzed in a crash. The driver lost control and rolled the car 4½ times off of the side of a road. Ochoa claimed its roof crushed more than she believed it should have, and that a weld in the roof had a manufacturing defect. She asked the jury for more than $50 million. Ford denied that the roof was defective, and defended that the roof performed reasonably and as expected under the extreme crash conditions and that there was no weld defect.
2. Greenwood v. Mepamsa and Camping World, Inc., Apache County Superior Court (2011). This was a case involving a flash fire from a propane-fueled heater. The Greenwoods claimed that it did not have an inlet filter in its propane supply line upstream from a safety control valve. They also claimed that sediment got into the heater and caused the safety valve to stay open, resulting in a leak. The family members had third- and second-degree burns. They asked for more than $15 million. Mepamsa and Camping World showed that the fire was caused by the improper installation of a pressure regulator by Amerigas, and that the regulator became contaminated with moisture that caused the malfunction.
3. Irwin v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. and Discount Tire Co., Inc., Pima County Superior Court (2011). This was a single-vehicle crash of an SUV after a tire failure. Leesa Irwin alleged that a rear tire failed and caused the SUV to roll over because of the tire’s design defects and manufacturing defects. She sustained injuries to her head, brain, leg, arm and hand, and asked the jury for $10 million. Cooper Tire and Discount Tire demonstrated that the tire failed because of road hazard damage. They also defended that the driver was driving 80 to 85 mph, and that he steered excessively and failed to control the vehicle after the tire failure.
4. Miidas Greenhouses, L.L.C. et al. v. Berger Group Ltd., Santa Cruz County Superior Court (2013). This case involved $7.5 million in crop losses from a certain kind of peat moss. Some of Miidas Greenhouses’ plants sprouted but they started drying out, and tests showed that the moss was too acidic for vegetable seeds and that it could not absorb enough water. Miidas alleged that Berger Group failed to identify the acidic properties of the moss or to warn that it was not appropriate for vegetable seeds. Berger Group defended that the moss was naturally acidic and that a warning was not required.
5. Everett v. C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., Maricopa County Superior Court (2012). Rosemary Everett had a filter surgically implanted in her inferior vena cava for collection of blood clots. The filter allegedly fractured and punctured her aorta, and later pierced the aorta, spine and duodenum. She required surgical repair both times but had no permanent effects. The Everetts alleged the filter was inadequately tested, was defective due to unreasonably high stress, that the failures were due to fatigue, and that the filter had an excessively high failure rate. They asked the jury for $5.5 million in compensatory damages plus punitive damages. Bard demonstrated that the filter was not defective and had been reasonably tested, that its fracture rate was no more than the industry average, and that the fractures came from atypical loading conditions.
6. Rezzonico v. Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc., Maricopa County Superior Court (2014). Crystal Rezzonico was a fire department captain responding to a fire call when a car collided into the side of her fire truck, causing the door to open and ejecting her. She sustained a traumatic brain injury and a seizure disorder. She claimed she was wearing her seatbelt but that its design permitted her seatbelt’s button to become contaminated, resulting in a partial or false latching of the buckle. She sought more than $2 million. Seatbelt manufacturer Indiana Mills & Manufacturing denied that she was wearing her seatbelt, and demonstrated that no contaminants were visible in the seatbelt buckle. It also argued the buckle was designed so that the button did not touch the metal latchplate that slots into the buckle.
7. Fields v. Mazda Motor Corporation, Maricopa County Superior Court (2011). In a similar case, Hali Fields alleged that her seatbelt was false latched by a plastic chip from the buckle cover that was later found inside the buckle. She claimed that the seatbelt released during a crash. She sustained a cervical fracture, closed head injury with brain damage, and rib fractures. Mazda defended that Fields was not wearing her seatbelt, and that there was no physical evidence on the restraint system or her body that showed otherwise. It also claimed that the chip landed and stayed where it did not interfere with the latch.
8. Millard v. Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing, Maricopa County Superior Court (2013). In this case, a vehicle’s headrest ejected and caused a steel splinter to pierce the eye of a plaintiff passenger. Plaintiffs alleged the headrest was defective in various respects and that Toyota failed to warn of the dangerous condition. Toyota defended that too much force was put on the headrest and that the release button was pressed while it was being forced upward.
9. Reaves v. Taurus International Manufacturing, United States District Court for the District of Arizona (2012). This was a case about a gun that exploded when David Reaves fired it. Reaves claimed that the high-velocity ammunition it was loaded with generated pressures that exceeded the margin of safety built into the revolver, that it was dangerous, and that its manual should have warned about high-velocity ammunition. He alleged a complete laceration of his trigger finger and other injuries. Taurus International defended that the ammunition was a misuse, that its warnings were adequate, and that it had no way to warn of each specific improper load.
10. Alcala v. Pentair, Inc., Pima County Superior Court (2012). James Alcala was servicing a home spa filter when the filter tank assembly exploded upward and struck him in the face and head. He alleged that the component parts and design of the relief valve were insufficient to prevent the separation of the tank assembly. Alcala sustained a head injury, brain damage, blindness in one eye, and fractured facial bones. Pentair defended that he did not follow the warnings or instructions, failed to open the relief valve, and/or failed to tighten the clamp band before turning on the pump.
And: Fonseca v. Boston Market Corporation, Pima County Superior Court (2011). Veronica Fonseca was eating at a Boston Market when she bit into a hard piece of cornbread. She alleged that it aggravated her TMJ condition. Boston Market defended that its cornbread did not cause her jaw complaints, and that its cornbread was not defective or unreasonably dangerous. The jury awarded Fonseca $200,000 but found her 41½ percent at fault, so her award was reduced to $117,000.
