Judge Sanctions Ford by Tossing Key Witness
Gwinnett County State Court Judge Shawn Bratton told the jury after lunch Thursday to disregard the testimony of a Ford expert who had been on the stand for two days because questions “willfully violated" orders.
April 05, 2018 at 04:22 PM
4 minute read
The judge threw out a Ford Motor Co. defense witness Thursday as a sanction for what he said was the automaker's lawyers' failure to comply with his orders governing a wrongful death product liability trial over roof crush claims.
Gwinnett County State Court Judge Shawn Bratton told the jury after lunch Thursday to disregard the testimony of Ford expert Dr. Thomas McNish, a medical doctor and aerospace expert who had been on the stand for two days. Bratton told the jury he had issued constraints in advance about what the witness was qualified to discuss. Ford's lawyers, Bratton said, “willfully violated those orders.”
Bratton told the jury to forget everything McNish had said. “Disregard the testimony of Dr. McNish in its entirety,” Bratton said. “Erase it from your memory.”
It was the latest drama in a contentious trial nearing the end of its third week. Courtroom View Network is recording and live streaming the trial. Kim and Adam Hill alleged their parents died because the truck's roof was weak and flattened on rollover. Ford argued that its roof was “reasonably safe” and that strengthening a roof is complicated.
Under direct examination by Ford lead counsel D. Alan Thomas of Huie Fernambucq & Stewart of Birmingham, Alabama, McNish had testified at length, talking about physics, rotational speed, “tangential velocity” and the center of gravity in a rollover crash that killed Melvin and Voncile Hill in their F-250 Ford Super Duty pickup truck.
The Hills' lead counsel, Jim Butler of Butler Wooten & Peak in Columbus and Atlanta, had objected repeatedly about Thomas leading the witness.
“Mr. Thomas, please try not to lead the witness,” Bratton had said.
Just before the lunch break, Thomas had asked McNish for his opinion about what killed the Hills. McNish said he believed they died from bumping their heads on different parts of the truck as it rolled, not from the roof crushing them.
Of Mrs. Hill, he said, “The roof stayed still. Her body moving toward her head is what caused the injury.”
Of Mr. Hill, McNish said that he was injured from bruising on the side and back of his head during the roll. “There was no evidence of force on the top of the head,” McNish said.
Butler objected, saying McNish was not qualified to draw such conclusions and that the court's order prevented the doctor from testifying about the cause of death.
The judge sent the jury out for a lunch break, after which he told them of his decision to toss the witness. Bratton told the jurors he was sorry that the trial will not finish this week as planned but will likely go on into next week. Then he gave them the rest of the day off and told them to report back at 9 a.m. Friday.
But even those plans could change. The judge is now considering mistrial motions from both sides: Ford on the grounds that the defense is disabled by the loss of the witness and the Hills on the charge that the jury is tainted by violations of court orders.
The week opened with a Monday morning motion from Butler asking the judge to toss Ford's entire defense on the grounds that a cross-examination last week violated the judge's orders for the trial. But Bratton allowed Ford to begin presenting its defense, which it has been doing for the past three days.
The case is Hill v. Ford, No. 16 C 04179-2.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFederal Judge Rejects Teams' Challenge to NASCAR's 'Anticompetitive Terms' in Agreement
Trial Begins for Man Accused of Killing Ga. Nursing Student Laken Riley
5 minute read'Rebound' In Demand For Legal Services Places Southeast Among Top 3 Regions In U.S.
4 minute readMaryland Atty Pushes Judge to Grant Discovery in Reverse Discrimination Suit Against King & Spalding
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Why Kramer Levin Decided to Merge
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-61
- 3Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 4US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 5Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250