Courtroom Success: Jim Campbell

Da Silva v. Ford Motor Company

James M. Campbell previously reported the successful defense of Ford Motor Company and now reports the successful appeal in an action brought by a young, single mother of three who sustained thoracic fractures resulting in paraplegia after a large SUV struck the rear of her stopped Ford Explorer. The impact caused the Explorer to strike the vehicle in front of it, which then hit another vehicle.

The plaintiff alleged that the driver’s seat and seat belt in the 1999 Ford Explorer were defective in design. Ford argued that the driver’s seat in the Explorer was well designed and that the only possible cause of the plaintiff’s unique thoracic injuries was her having worn the shoulder belt portion of the seat belt behind her back at the time of the accident. The plaintiff vehemently denied that she was wearing the belt improperly. After the defense verdict at trial, the plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued she was entitled to a new trial because the trial court erred in excluding the police report, emergency responder report, and emergency room medical records, which contained notations of seat belt usage. The plaintiff claimed these materials were admissible because: (1) they were business or public records subject to a hearsay exception; (2) they were relied on by the plaintiff’s experts; and (3) they were relied on by Ford’s experts. Ford’s position was that the records were properly excluded by the trial court because they were unreliable hearsay statements from an unknown source which were not exceptions to the hearsay rule, were not properly admissible under either N.J.R.E. 703 or 705, and were properly excluded under N.J.R.E. 403 because any probative value was substantially outweighed by the prejudice to Ford.

After briefing and oral argument, the Appellate Division affirmed the defense verdict.