## Facts

- Robert Gonzalez, Jr. bought a new 1989 Ford Escort manufactured by Ford Motor Company.
- During the two years he owned the car, the right front tire repeatedly developed an unusual wear pattern.
- Gonzalez took the Escort to the selling Ford dealership for repair about 10–15 times; the dealership’s mechanic adjusted the vehicle’s alignment multiple times.
- Because the tire-wear condition kept returning, Gonzalez contacted a Ford factory representative about four times and was told the problem would be corrected.
- On April 15, 1991, Gonzalez was driving on a highway with his fiancée, Nora Navin, and her son when the vehicle left the roadway and rolled over.
- Gonzalez testified the steering wheel suddenly jerked to the right, the car went onto the shoulder, and the vehicle rolled when he attempted to steer back onto the road.
- A witness, Sam Rodriguez, testified that immediately before the crash he saw the right front wheel wobble and lean to the right.
- Trooper Caro, who investigated the crash, testified the tire tracks were consistent with the right front wheel sliding sideways.
- Gonzalez and Navin sued Ford for strict products liability (manufacturing defect and marketing defect/failure to warn), negligence, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
- Plaintiffs presented mechanical engineer James Flanagan, who connected the recurring wear to misalignment (camber/caster) that caused vibration and damage to ball joints, which could loosen the wheel and cause wobble; he testified the wheel must have come loose before the accident and that replacing the car’s front end would have prevented the crash.
- Ford presented its own engineering witness who testified the dealership’s repairs were appropriate and that the right front tire can show more wear than other tires, and an accident reconstruction witness who attributed the rollover to Gonzalez’s steering inputs rather than a mechanical failure.
- The jury found for Gonzalez and Navin on their claims, and Ford appealed, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence that a defect (or Ford’s conduct) caused the accident and injuries.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury’s finding that a defect in the Escort existed and was a producing cause of the rollover and plaintiffs’ injuries.
2. Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support causation for the negligence and DTPA findings based on Ford’s handling of Gonzalez’s repeated complaints and repair attempts.
3. Whether the jury could reasonably resolve conflicting expert testimony on defect and causation in plaintiffs’ favor.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the judgment for Gonzalez and Navin.
- The court held there was legally sufficient evidence—and also factually sufficient evidence—of a causal link between the claimed right-front suspension/steering condition and the rollover.
- The court concluded that conflicts between the parties’ experts and competing causation theories were for the jury to decide and did not require reversal.

## Legal Principles

- On legal-sufficiency review, the court considers evidence and reasonable inferences that support the verdict and disregards contrary evidence.
- On factual-sufficiency review, the court weighs all the evidence and reverses only if the finding is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust.
- In a products-liability case, a defect and producing cause may be proved through circumstantial evidence and opinion testimony; direct proof of the precise failure mechanism is not required when the record supports a reasonable inference of causation.
- When qualified witnesses offer competing explanations, credibility choices and the resolution of conflicting technical testimony are matters for the jury.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the jury’s verdict against Ford because the record contained sufficient evidence—recurring abnormal right-front tire wear despite repeated repair attempts and assurances, testimony that the steering pulled right, eyewitness and investigating-officer observations consistent with right-front wheel instability, and plaintiffs’ engineering testimony linking those facts to a loosened right-front assembly—to support the finding that a vehicle defect (and related conduct) caused the rollover, even though Ford presented an alternative driver-error explanation.


Ford Motor Company v. Gonzalez, 9 S.W.3d 195 (1999)