## Facts

- Richard Schultz lost control of his 1995 Ford Explorer on black ice on Indiana State Road 2 in December 1997.
- The vehicle slid into a ditch, struck a sloped embankment, rolled over, and came to rest upright.
- Schultz was wearing a seatbelt; experts estimated the speed at the first skid marks as 26–32 mph.
- During the rollover, the Explorer’s roof collapsed onto Schultz, causing a neck injury that left him a quadriplegic.
- Richard and Gail Schultz sued Ford Motor Company alleging defective roof design and negligence, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- Ford asserted the Explorer complied with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 216 (roof crush resistance) when sold, invoking an Indiana statutory rebuttable presumption of nondefectiveness.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Indiana product liability law and Indiana Evidence Rule 301, the trial court could instruct the jury that proof of FMVSS 216 compliance permits a rebuttable presumption that the vehicle was not defective and Ford was not negligent.
2. Whether such a presumption instruction may have continuing evidentiary effect even after the plaintiffs present contrary evidence.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacated the Court of Appeals decision, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment for Ford.
- The Court held that Evidence Rule 301 authorized the challenged instruction stating the jury “may presume” nondefectiveness and nonnegligence upon a finding of FMVSS 216 compliance.
- The Court concluded the instruction was permissive, rebuttable, and did not constitute reversible error.

## Legal Principles

- Indiana Evidence Rule 301 permits presumptions to have continuing effect even when the opposing party introduces contrary evidence, so long as the predicate facts for the presumption are found.
- An Indiana product liability statute makes regulatory compliance at the time of sale a rebuttable presumption that a product is not defective (and supports an inference of no design negligence).
- A jury may be instructed on a statutory presumption when framed as permissive (“may presume”) and when the instruction makes clear the presumption is rebuttable and the predicate fact (compliance) must be proven.
- Proof of compliance can be treated as especially weighty evidence for the jury to consider, without converting it into a mandatory finding or shifting the burden of persuasion from the plaintiff.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a jury instruction allowing a rebuttable, permissive presumption of nondefectiveness and nonnegligence based on proof of FMVSS 216 compliance, ruling that Indiana Evidence Rule 301 allows the presumption to remain for the jury’s consideration even after contrary evidence is introduced.


Schultz v. Ford Motor Co., 857 N.E.2d 977 (Ind. 2006)