(Photo: r.classen/Shutterstock.com)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit revived a lawsuit against Ford Motor Co. over a seat belt that allegedly failed in a F-250 pickup truck during a rollover accident.

The trial judge overseeing the case granted Ford summary judgment, ruling among other things that Alabama’s implied warranty statute could not be applied because the seat belt worked when the used truck was sold, and was subsequently “altered” when two springs broke in the buckle.

But the per curiam opinion issued Aug. 5 by Judges Gerald Tjoflat and Charles Wilson and Senior Judge Frank Hull said the fact that there were broken springs inside the seat belt assembly could support a jury’s finding that the device was “unfit” at the time of sale and vacated the trial court’s ruling.

“A body of ‘reasonable and fair-minded men’ could determine that a seat belt in a car purchases today should not unexpectedly come undone in an accident ten years later due simply to wear and tear,” the opinion said.

As detailed in the ruling and other filings, plaintiff Jerry Easterming was driving the 2003 F-250 Super Duty pickup truck in Shelby County in December 2012 when he hit a patch of ice, slid off the road into a ditch and rolled over.

His complaint said he was wearing his seat belt at the time, but it came unlatched. Easterling suffered multiple spinal fractures as well as other injuries and sued Ford in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in 2014.

At the time of the wreck, the truck “was in substantially the same mechanical and design condition as it was on the date of its manufacture and sale,” said the complaint, which included claims for breach of warranty, negligence, wantonness and violation of Alabama’s Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine.

Ford moved for summary judgment on all four counts, and in 2018 Chief Magistrate Judge John Ott dismissed all the claims.

Easterling asked the court to alter its judgment only as to the implied warranty claim. That claim alone was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit after Ott refused.

In their ruling, the appellate panel said there were two questions it needed to answer: What the Alabama standard for breach of implied warranty entails and whether the record contained enough evidence to support Ott’s summary judgment ruling.

Ford had argued that a product must be shown to have been defective and that it was “unfit” at the time of sale to breach its warranty, the opinion said.

But while the statute makes clear that a product cannot be found in breach if the damage resulted from nonordinary usage or was fit for ordinary usage when sold, it also provides for a fact-finder to consider its “age and wear and tear.”

“A good is unfit if it lacks a level of hardiness and resistance to wear and tear, such that normal use will not cause sudden and catastrophic failure,” the opinion said. “Just as the district court was required to account for the fact that the seat belt was ten years old, it was required to analyze what a ten-year-old seat belt should be able to withstand.”

In this case, there was no dispute by the parties that their experts had found that two guide springs in the buckle were broken and that the release button was depressed as a result.

Easterling’s expert said that meant that, even if the buckled clicked when it was fastened, it might come open if a sudden force were applied and was thus “compromised.”

“The most significant fact that Ford takes grievance with is the age of the broken seat belt,” it said. “But when all parties agree that the pair of guide springs was broken … and Ford’s own exert observed wear and tear ‘typical of normal use’—a fact-finder must be allowed to apply the statutory standard to the facts of Easterling’s claims.”

“The record contains no evidence, moreover, that Easterling used the seat belt for some ill-fitting purpose—say storing loose change or stashing chewing gum in the buckle slot,” the opinion said, and a jury could find that the belt was not fit for normal usage.

Easterling is represented by Andrew Moak and Craig Niedenthal of Birmingham’s Shunnarah Injury Lawyers. Niedenthal declined to comment.

Ford’s appellate team includes Paul Malek and D. Alan Thomas of Huie Fernambucq & Stewart; Melodie Egan, Nikaa Jordan and Jeffrey Doss of Lightfoot Franklin & White; and Douglas Carmichael of Bainbridge Mims Rogers & Smith. All of the firms are in Birmingham.

Fords lawyers did not respond to a request for comment.