By Lynn Hatter
http://stream.publicbroadcasting.net/production/mp3/wfsu/local-wfsu-967077.mp3
Tallahassee, FL –
The Florida House has sent a bill to the governor revising what evidence can be used in court to determine liability in car crashes. The law reverses a 2001 Supreme Court decision that ruled certain evidence be left out. But as Lynn Hatter reports, supporters of the change say juries should have access to all details involved in order to make better decisions.
The proposal overturns a 2001 Florida Supreme Court ruling in the case of D'Amario vs. Ford Motor Company. Justices found Ford liable for the deaths of two children and the injury of a third child after the car crashed into a tree and exploded. The court also ruled juries can't hear other facts that could have contributed to the crash like drunk driving. The D'Amario family claimed the explosion was caused by a defect in the car. Representative Ed Hooper of Pinellas says he was there the night the children died.
"Three kids, on the most dangerous road in Pinellas County, in excessive rate of speed, lost control and plowed backwards into a wooded area. Now, whether the crank case was ruptured by stumps matters not. 85 backwards into woods is never good."
The Supreme Court's decision overturned a lower court's ruling that sided with Ford and determined that the company wasn't responsible. And Hooper agrees with the lower court ruling.
"Residents heard the crash, came out to help, and could not get the doors open. The car's on fire, the three kids are inside screaming, and no one can get the doors open because its pinned between trees."
Hooper supports Senate Bill 142, which would allow juries to hear all evidence in such cases, like if the driver was drunk, to determine which party, if any, is liable in car crashes. Supporters of the bill say it's needed so that fully informed decisions can be made by juries. Republican Representative Bill Proctor of St. Augustine says there's no doubt that in some crashes, the product is at fault, but in others, it's a combination of human error and manufacturer defect.
"I finally found one statement by a court that didn't torture logic. And it said: fairness and good reason require that the fault of the defender and of the plaintiff should be compelled with each other with respect to all damages and injuries for which the conduct of each party is a cause in fact."
But Democratic Representative Richard Steinburg of Miami says the bill goes too far and let's auto companies off the hook when defective parts result in injuries.
"So If you make the mistake of not putting on a seatbelt, it's your fault. If the manufacturer make the mistake of not producing a seatbelt that works when you put it on, its not their fault. That's not fair."
The House voted for the bill on a largely party-line 80-to 35 vote, with Democrats like Representative Darren Soto in opposition. He says if designs are defective, manufacturers need to fix them, regardless of who is at fault in an accident.
"The great newsflash is that cars crash, juries are rash, and manufacturers don't fix defects unless it means cash. Because this bill allows manufacturers to muddy the waters, to avoid fixing dangerous defects, I cannot support this bill."
The bill pits trial lawyers who bring the cases against businesses and the defendant auto companies. Shortly after the House approved the bill, the state's largest business lobbying group, Associated Industries of Florida released a statement saying the bill will help "remove legal roadblocks hindering the state's economic recovery", but opponents see it as a free pass for auto companies to avoid responsibility for bad products. The proposal now goes to the Governor, who, with a pro-business background, is likely to sign it into law.