## Facts

- Robert and Carol Brokopp sued Ford Motor Co. (manufacturer) and Sunset Ford (dealer/converter) after a one-car crash involving a Ford Econoline van converted into a motor home.
- Before the accident, the power-steering belt repeatedly came off the pulley; Sunset Ford attempted repairs, but the problem continued.
- About a month later, while driving in Mexico, the vehicle crashed; Robert Brokopp suffered severe injuries and Carol Brokopp suffered minor injuries.
- Plaintiffs alleged a defect in the power-steering pump bracket allowed the belt to come off while the pulley was moving, causing sudden loss of steering control.
- At trial, experts for both sides agreed the belt’s physical markings did not show it came off while the pulley was moving.
- During opening and closing argument, plaintiffs’ counsel: (i) asked jurors to put themselves in Mr. Brokopp’s position on damages; (ii) contrasted plaintiffs with Ford as a large corporation; (iii) attacked Ford’s witnesses as evasive; (iv) appealed to jurors’ financial self-interest regarding who should pay medical costs; and (v) marked the belt exhibit with a crayon to support counsel’s causation theory.
- Ford did not object to the arguments or request admonitions except as to the crayon-marking; the trial court ordered the markings removed and directed counsel not to mark exhibits.

## Issues

1. Whether Ford could obtain reversal for alleged misconduct in plaintiffs’ opening and closing argument when Ford generally failed to object and request curative admonitions at trial.
2. Whether any claimed trial errors (including evidentiary rulings, limits on cross-examination, and compelled disclosure of asserted work product) required reversal under the prejudicial-error standard.
3. Whether the evidence supported liability under negligence and strict products liability based on an alleged steering-system defect causing the crash.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for plaintiffs.
- Ford waived most claims of attorney misconduct by failing to timely object and request jury admonitions.
- The only preserved misconduct claim (crayon-marking the belt exhibit) was cured by the trial court’s prompt corrective action.
- Any additional trial errors identified by Ford were not prejudicial and did not result in a miscarriage of justice.
- The jury’s findings supported liability, including strict products liability, based on a defect that proximately caused the injuries.

## Legal Principles

- A party generally cannot obtain reversal for improper jury argument unless it timely objects and requests an admonition; otherwise, the claim is forfeited on appeal.
- Appellate reversal for trial error requires a showing of prejudice—i.e., a reasonable probability the error affected the result or amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
- In strict products liability, a manufacturer is liable when a product defect existing when it left the manufacturer’s control is found to be a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury, independent of negligence.
- When an expert will be used as a testifying witness, underlying data relied upon for testimony may be subject to disclosure notwithstanding a work-product claim, to allow fair examination.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a substantial products-liability verdict, holding that most complaints about opposing counsel’s arguments were forfeited by the absence of timely objections and requests for admonitions, and that any preserved or additional trial errors were cured or harmless under the miscarriage-of-justice standard.


Brokopp v. Ford Motor Co., 71 Cal. App. 3d 841, 139 Cal. Rptr. 888 (Ct. App. 1977)