Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Company
Filed March 10, 2008, Fourth District, Division One,
Cite as 2008 SOS 1486

Judgment on Damages in Rollover Accident Reversed and Remanded

Benetta Buell-Wilson was involved in a rollover accident while driving her Ford Explorer on an interstate highway which caused severe injuries and left Wilson a paraplegic.

Before the accident Wilson was an active mother of two. She enjoyed camping and hiking and had a black belt in martial arts.

After the accident, Wilson’s life was altered completely. She could no longer engage in the active lifestyle that she enjoyed, which included swimming, skiing, dancing, and backpacking. In addition, her husband lost the physical relationship that he formerly shared with her, and he became her primary caregiver.

The Wilsons sued Ford Motor Company and Drew Ford. The jury ruled in favor of the Wilsons, finding the following facts:

• that the Explorer was defectively unstable


• the Explorer was not crashworthy due to a defect in the roof


• Drew failed to warn the Wilsons that the Explorer was defectively unstable


• Ford and Drew failed to warn the Wilsons of the danger posed by the defect in the roof

The jury also awarded Wilson $109,606,004 in damages for her injuries, consisting of $4,606,004 in economic damages and $105 million in non-economic damages, and awarded Mr. Wilson $13 million for his loss of consortium.

The jury also found that Ford acted with “oppression, fraud or malice” and awarded the Wilsons $246 million in punitive damages.

Ford moved for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. As a result, the trial court reduced Wilson’s total compensatory damages award to $70 million, resulting in an award of $4,606,004 in economic damages and $65,393,996 in non-economic damages.

The court also reduced Mr. Wilson’s loss of consortium damages to $5 million. The court reduced the punitive damages award to $75 million, a one-to-one ratio to the Wilsons’ total reduced award of compensatory damages.

Further, Ford appealed, based on the following arguments:

• that the non-economic damages award remained excessive as a matter of law


• that the jury’s decision resulted from passion and prejudice, and was therefore extreme when viewed against awards in comparable cases


• that the punitive damages award was excessive and violated its due process rights

On appeal, the Fourth District court of appeals conditionally reversed in part, holding that the non-economic and punitive damages awards were excessive and “the product of passion and prejudice”.

The court noted however that the award also had to be considered in relation to Wilson’s projected lifespan of 35 years, or some $1.8 million per year, which was an extremely high amount.

The court also considered awards in other cases as relevant evidence establishing a frame of reference. The court cautioned, however, that ultimately it had to determine the propriety of the award based on the facts of the Wilsons’ case.

Further, the court noted, too, that a verdict may not be held excessive as a matter of law merely because it exceeds the amount awarded in other cases.

The court concluded that an award of $55 million would be approximately two times the total compensatory damages award to the Wilsons and an appropriate figure for punitive damages.

On the other hand, the action was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which directed that the court of appeal reconsider its opinion in light of Philip Morris USA v. Williams (2007) 166 L.Ed.2d 940, 127 Supreme Court 1057. On remand, Ford contended in pertinent part that Philip Morris required a further reduction in the punitive damages award.

The Fourth Appellate District therefore conditionally reversed the judgment in part. The court held two important facts of the case:

• on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, that a jury’s non-economic damages award against an auto manufacturer was excessive as the result of passion or prejudice where it substantially exceeded the amount sought by the plaintiffs


• that the jury’s punitive damages award was excessive where a lesser, two-to-one ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages would be sufficient to punish the manufacturer and deter its similar wrongful conduct in the future.