## Facts

- Barry William Muth, Sr., was the belted front-seat passenger in a 1996 four-door Ford Crown Victoria driven by another U.S. Army major on a highway in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
- The driver entered a right-hand curve at roughly ten miles per hour over the speed limit, lost control, and struck a three-foot-high concrete “Jersey barrier” dividing the roadway.
- The vehicle rode up the barrier, slid along it, rolled over, and came to rest on its roof about 209 feet from the first impact.
- Muth suffered a C5–C6 cervical subluxation injury causing quadriplegia; the driver sustained minor injuries.
- Muth and his family sued Ford under negligence and strict products-liability theories, alleging defective design of the occupant-restraint system and roof structure under a crashworthiness theory.
- Plaintiffs’ expert opined the passenger-side roof crushed 12–15 inches and that a feasible alternative design using thicker steel could have limited crush to about 3 inches at an added cost of roughly $9 per vehicle.
- Ford argued roof strength would not materially change injury outcomes in rollovers because a three-point belt allows occupant “drop” into the roof; Ford claimed only a racing-style harness would prevent head-to-roof contact.
- Ford relied on rollover testing data (including GM testing from the early 1980s and Ford CRIS tests around 2000–2001) to support its injury-mechanism theory; plaintiffs disputed the tests’ comparability to the accident dynamics.
- A jury in the Western District of Texas found a design defect that was a producing cause of Muth’s injuries and awarded nearly $9 million; Ford appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient under Texas products-liability law to support the jury’s findings of design defect and producing cause in a rollover crashworthiness case.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding crash-test videos and photographs (while allowing expert testimony about the test data) and by limiting other defense evidence or cross-examination.
3. Whether the trial judge’s comments and courtroom management denied Ford a fair trial.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment for plaintiffs.
- The court held the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find the vehicle unreasonably dangerous due to a design defect and to find the defect was a producing cause of Muth’s injuries.
- The court held exclusion of crash-test videos and photographs was within the district court’s discretion given differences between the tests and the accident and the risk of misleading the jury.
- The court found no reversible error in other evidentiary rulings or limits on cross-examination.
- The court held the trial judge’s conduct did not show prejudicial partiality or deprive Ford of a fair trial.

## Legal Principles

- Under Texas design-defect and crashworthiness law, a plaintiff must present evidence that a product was unreasonably dangerous because of a design defect and that the defect was a producing cause of the injury.
- On appellate review of a jury verdict, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and does not reweigh competing expert opinions when the record supports the jury’s choice.
- A feasible alternative design and its relative cost may support a finding of unreasonable danger and causation when supported by expert testimony about how the alternative would mitigate injury.
- Trial courts have broad discretion to exclude demonstrative crash-test evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence when the demonstration does not closely replicate the accident and poses a risk of unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading similarity.
- A trial judge has wide latitude to manage the proceedings; judicial comments warrant reversal only when they likely influence the verdict by conveying partiality or views on the merits.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit left intact a nearly $9 million rollover crashworthiness verdict against Ford, holding that plaintiffs presented sufficient expert and alternative-design evidence for the jury to find a roof/restraint design defect and producing cause, and that the district court neither abused its discretion in excluding non-comparable crash-test videos and photos nor engaged in conduct requiring a new trial.


Muth v. Ford Motor Co., 461 F.3d 557 (5th Cir. 2006)