Jurls v. Ford Motor Company

Danny Jurls (plaintiff) and Betty Jean Jurls (plaintiff) had an automobile accident when Danny lost control of their Ford Ranger on an exit ramp. Because he was unable to slow down, Danny initially believed his brakes had malfunctioned. However, he later learned that the cruise-control system had malfunctioned. The Jurlses sued Ford Motor Company (Ford) (defendant) for products liability, alleging that the vehicle’s cruise-control system had a manufacturing defect. Both immediately after the accident and at trial, Danny was adamant that he hit the brakes and that the vehicle would not stop. Both sides presented expert testimony about possible causes of the Jurlses’ accident, but none of the Jurlses’ expert witnesses could point to any specific defect that made the cruise-control system malfunction. However, all the Jurlses’ and Ford’s expert witnesses agreed that the engine noise that the Jurls heard could only have occurred because either Danny inadvertently had his foot on the accelerator rather than the brake, or the cruise-control system was engaged After withstanding two summary-judgment motions, the case proceeded to a jury trial. However, after the Jurlses presented their case, the trial court dismissed their claim and granted Ford’s motion for a directed verdict. The trial court held that the Jurlses did not prove a defect existed and that reasonable minds could not conclude that there was a defect in the vehicle when it left Ford’s possession. In addition, the trial judge also said he would not allow the case to go before a jury only to try to get sympathy for the Jurlses because Ford has deep pockets. The Jurlses appealed.