DEFENDANT'S VERDICT - PRODUCT LIABILITY - AUTOMOTIVE DESIGN DEFECT - PLAINTIFF'S DRIVER'S SIDE WINDOW BREAKS DURING ROLLOVER INCIDENT CAUSING PLAINTIFF'S LEFT HAND TO BE EJECTED RESULTING IN SEVERE INJURY - FAILURE TO PROPERLY DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE TRUCK WITH PROPER ROLLOVER PROTECTIONS - LEFT HAND DEGLOVING - SURGICAL AMPUTATION OF LEFT HAND.

Pages5-5
DEFENDANT’S VERDICT – PRODUCT LIABILITY – AUTOMOTIVE DESIGN DEFECT –
PLAINTIFF’S DRIVER’S SIDE WINDOW BREAKS DURING ROLLOVER INCIDENT
CAUSING PLAINTIFF’S LEFT HAND TO BE EJECTED RESULTING IN SEVERE INJURY –
FAILURE TO PROPERLY DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE TRUCK WITH PROPER
ROLLOVER PROTECTIONS – LEFT HAND DEGLOVING – SURGICAL AMPUTATION OF
LEFT HAND.
Dallas County, TX
The plaintiff in this product liability action
maintained that he suffered severe and life-
altering injury to his left hand when while in the
course and scope of his employment as a truck
driver, the defendant’s truck rolled over causing
the plaintiffs left hand to be ejected from the
driver side window. The plaintiff sued both the
truck manufacturer and his employer for
negligence. The defendants denied all allegations
of negligence arguing that the truck was crash
worthy and stating that it was the actions of the
plaintiff that caused the incident.
At about 6:00 a.m. on March 14, 2017, the male plain-
tiff was driving eastbound in the left lane on Interstate 10
in Luna County, New Mexico in a 2015 International
DuraStar 4300 manufactured by Navistar, when the truck
went off the road to the left. The plaintiff attempted to
drive the truck back to the roadway but the truck rolled
onto the driver’s side and slid across the highway. Al-
though the driver’s moveable side window in the truck
was in the up position, the tempered glass broke out
and completely evacuated the window opening during
the one-quarter roll. As a result, the plaintiff’s left hand
exited the driver’s side window and was degloved and
mangled when it made contact with the roadway.
The defendant Navistar manufactured the vehicle in
question and the plaintiff was performing the duties of
his employment with defendant employers. The plaintiff
maintained that the defendant truck manufacturer de-
fectively designed, distributed, and marketed the vehi-
cle alleging the truck was incapable of maintaining its
structural integrity, particularly as to its windows, and
doors. The plaintiff argued that the defendant should
have used properly strengthened glazing and proper
window frame supports. Additionally, the truck was de-
fective because it failed to provide proper roll over
supports.
The plaintiff maintained that his employer was negligent
in providing the plaintiff with a dangerous piece of
equipment to operate and failing to properly train its
employees in the safe operation of the type of truck in
question. The plaintiff’s left hand made contact with the
ground during the rollover and was degloved and man-
gled resulting in surgical amputation. The defendant
truck manufacturer denied all allegations of negligence
and maintained that the vehicle exceeded vehicular
safety standards and it was the actions of the plaintiff
that caused the incident resulting in damages. The
plaintiff’s employer was nonsuited by the plaintiff due to
lack of evidence as to proximate cause of the incident.
The jury was asked if there was a design defect in the
truck manufactured by the defendant and involved in
the plaintiff’s collision and the jury answered “no” return-
ing a verdict for the defense.
REFERENCE
Da’Vonric Forge vs. Navistar and Raphael Ngoumateua
Djine, Individually and D/B/A Angel Vanlines, D/B/A Union
Vanlines, D/B/A The Relocation Solution, D/B/A Joy Mov-
ing and Storage, and D/B/A Union Moving and Delivery.
Case no. DC-17-09472; Judge Maricela Moore, 05-02-
22.
Attorney for plaintiff: T. Nguyen of Turley Law Firm
in Dallas, TX. Attorney for defendant: Jeffrey S.
Patterson of Hartline Barger, LLP in Dallas, TX.
COMMENTARY
The defense provided expert testimony from accident
reconstructionists and engineers who stated that the collision event
was due to a lack of attention or drowsiness on the part of the
plaintiff as a result of a multiple-day trip without adequate rest.
This resulted in the plaintiff allowing the truck to drift to the left
and enter a dirt median. The plaintiff then attempted to correct the
course of action using a sudden steer to the right which caused the
vehicle to the rollover. During the rollover, the driver side mirror
came in contact with the ground and was forced rearward into the
driver side window, shattering the window. The defense experts
opined that neither a window glass alternative or rollover protec-
tion gear would have prevented the side mirror from bending and
breaking the window on impact.
Texas Jury Verdict Review & Analysis
5
Subscribe Now

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT