Paralyzed Passenger's Verdict Against Ford Survives Appeal

On September 9, 1990, James Ulm spent the day boating on the Harriman Reservoir near Wilmington, Vermont. Riding home afterward as a passenger in a friend's 1978 Ford Bronco, he was on a dirt road at roughly 20 to 25 miles per hour when the driver approached a curve and lost steering control. The Bronco left the road, climbed an embankment, struck a tree and rolled onto its passenger side.

Ulm broke his back in the crash. The injury damaged his spinal cord and left him paralyzed from the waist down.

Ulm sued Ford Motor Company, arguing the Bronco's steering system was defectively designed and that a failure in the sector shaft caused the driver to lose control. At trial in Windham Superior Court, his lawyers introduced evidence of other sector-shaft failures in similar Ford vehicles. Ford objected to that evidence as unfairly prejudicial, but the trial court allowed it.

The court also excluded evidence Ford wanted to offer that Ulm had not been wearing a seatbelt. Vermont's safety belt statute bars that evidence in a civil case whatever the legal theory behind it, so the jury never heard the argument and no part of the verdict was discounted for it.

The jury sided with Ulm and awarded $1,250,000, including $260,000 for emotional distress. After the verdict, the trial court factored in credits for pretrial settlements Ulm had already reached with other parties and added $150,290 in prejudgment interest. The final judgment came to $1,290,460.52.

Ford appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court, challenging both the admission of the other sector-shaft failures and the award of prejudgment interest on a general verdict. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Massachusetts, which had covered Ulm's medical care, separately intervened in the case seeking to recover its costs out of his award. The Supreme Court rejected every challenge Ford raised, upheld the prejudgment interest award, and turned back Kaiser's bid for subrogation rights in the lawsuit, holding that the health plan's policy gave it only a right to reimbursement out of a recovery. The judgment in Ulm's favor stood in full.

James L. Ulm was represented by Michael F. Hanley and Barney L. Bramen of Plante, Hanley & Bramen, P.C. in White River Junction. Ford was defended by attorneys from firms in Vermont, Massachusetts and Florida. The Vermont Supreme Court's opinion, reported at 170 Vt. 281, affirmed the judgment in all respects.