Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
Florida's Supreme Court gives the sole survivor of a 1992 fiery Ford Escort crash another chance to prove the car was defective.
By ANITA KUMAR
© St. Petersburg Times, published November 22, 2001
In 1992 a fiery automobile crash left Clifford Harris terribly disfigured. In 1997 he lost his lawsuit against Ford Motor Co. In 1999 he failed at the appellate level, too.
But Wednesday, nine years after the accident, Harris tasted victory for the first time.
The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the 24-year-old should have a new trial -- another opportunity to prove that his severe injuries were caused by a design flaw in the Ford Escort that crashed.
"I knew they would come through," said Harris, from his St. Petersburg home. "I've been waiting for a long time."
In its 47-page ruling, the state's highest court ruled that an automaker cannot escape blame just because it did not cause an accident in the first place. What matters in this case, the court says, is how the car performed after the crash.
Harris, 15 at the time of the accident, lost three limbs and suffered burns on 80 percent of his body after a car crashed into a tree, then was engulfed by a fire that apparently began in the engine area. He and two other boys were trapped in the car after the crash but witnesses heard them talking calmly before the fire spread.
The focus in this case, the court said, "is not on the conduct that gave rise to the initial accident, but rather, on the conduct that allegedly caused the enhanced or secondary injuries."
Ford blamed the accident on the 15-year-old driver, Stanley Livernois, who had been drinking and was behind the wheel of the 1988 Escort without the adult supervision his license required. At trial, the company's experts attributed the fire to oil and other lubricants spread around by the crash.
The court said jurors in these cases need to understand the difference between the two sets of injuries.
"Crashworthiness cases involve separate and distinct injuries -- those caused by the initial collision, and those subsequently caused by . . . a defective product."
Wil Florin, one of the attorneys representing Harris and his mother, said Ford will not be able to bring up the alcohol use and age of the driver in the next trial.
"This is really a landmark ruling for tort reform in Florida," Florin said. "A lot of cases are on hold waiting for this ruling."
But Phil Burlington, a West Palm Beach personal injury lawyer not affiliated with the case, said the company probably will be able to bring up the alcohol use as the attorneys distinguish the cause of the initial crash from the subsequent fire.
"It's quite significant," Burlington agreed. "It will definitely affect other cases."
The Supreme Court's ruling does not dictate what either side can argue at the trial. Much of that will be determined by the trial judge.
Orlando lawyer Ronald Cabaniss, who represented Ford in the case, could not be reached for comment Wednesday. Officials at Ford Motor Co. did not return phone calls but have previously maintained that the car's design was not at fault.
"The facts of the case were pretty straightforward," Ford spokesman Jim Cain said in 1999. "It was a tragedy, but an underage driver who was intoxicated lost control of the vehicle. It wasn't our fault."
Harris had been receiving free medical care from Shriners Hospital, but that ended when he turned 21. Harris, who receives government assistance, and his mother, Karen D'Amario of Clearwater, asked the jury for $41-million for medical costs, loss of income and pain and suffering.
Harris, who became somewhat of a recluse after the accident, now lives on his own and plans to launch an online business with a friend. He continues to undergo surgery on his chest, and said he has had 75 or more in all.
"I'm pretty sure I'll win this time," he said. "It will work this time."
After losing the first trial, his attorneys asked for a new trial because they claimed that two jurors failed to disclose relevant information about themselves. Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge Howard Rives agreed and ordered a new trial. But the 2nd District Court of Appeal reinstated the verdict and rejected the request.
The Supreme Court granted a new trial but based on a different issue -- that of accountability for the car's performance even after the crash.