|
Ricci
v. Volvo
Rebuttal from Larry Coben
Addressed
to the ARC Network:
You recently
published a description of a trial involving Ricci v. Volvo, which
transpired recently in Reno, Nevada. The perspective presented
was clearly biased and was printed without any input from the
plaintiffs side.
Let me first
correct some of the statements in your publication.
First, the
plaintiffs did not "ask" the jury for any specific some
of money. Mr. Ricci's injury has left him paralyzed from the neck
down, thereby requiring very substantial expenses and a loss of
earnings power.
Second, while
Volvo did bring in testimony of several paid experts to rebut
the plaintiffs evidence, there was never any evidence that the
model in question had a strength to weight ratio which was significantly
greater than the minimum federal standard.
Third, there
was no mention that the court probably committed reversible error
in telling the jury that they could find in favor of Volvo based
solely on a finding that a rollover in which a car rolls over
3 times can constitute legal "misuse" for which Volvo
is not liable even if the car's design is unsafe. This instruction
ignored the evidence and the fact that Volvo has represented to
the public that its cars are designed to provide safety in rollovers
involving multiple rolls.
Your summary
of the case did not mention that there was virtually no evidence
that during the rollover the Volvo was airborne. Since that was
uncontested, how could any rationale jury find that the injury
was due to "diving" when Mr. Ricci was seat belted?
The fact is
that the jury in question found for Volvo and we will never no
exactly why. But, to suggest that the verdict was for the defendant
because the car is very safe is not valid. Many juries have a
tough time finding against a car company when the driver is responsible
for losing control, even when the car has a design flaw enhancing
the injuries. Likewise, juries often find against the victims
of product design defect because of the judicial rulings which
often emasculate the valid evidence that a party should be permitted
to present to a jury.
In this instance,
as an example, Mr. Ricci was unable to present evidence that Volvo
now markets an SUV that it says can prevent head and neck injury
by having a strong roof and decent seat belt. Nevertheless, at
trial, the Volvo paid witnesses disputed these very points, and
the jury never got to hear about these Volvo admissions.
I have not
written to you to voice any "sour grapes", but rather
to help your readers obtain a more balanced perspective of the
trial of this case.
- L.Coben
lcoben@cobenlaw.com
Article
of Reference:
Rare Volvo Crash Trial Results in Unanimous Defense Verdict
Return
to May 2003 Newsletter
|
