MEMORANDUM

TO: Supervising Attorney

FROM: Sammy A. Student

RE: Smith V. Ford : Ford G450 Transmission Shift Lever Being/Remaining in park

Date: 3/30/18

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED
1. Is it certain that the reasonable consumer (Casey Smith) would expect the Ford G450 to
not roll over her and pin her between the loading dock?
2. Did Casey Smith set the Ford G450 transmission lever to “park” before she exited the
vehicle?

BRIEF ANSWER(S)
1. Yes, the reasonable consumer would not expect a Ford G450 to roll over them when the
vehicle was properly set to park.
2. Yes, Casey Smith placed the Ford G450 transmission lever to “park”.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Casey Smith, an employee of UPS for five years, a recipient of multiple awards for safe
and on time delivery percentages, and a person who overall enjoyed her job, would be
considered a reasonable consumer. With that, Casey Smith would then assume that when she put
the Ford G450 vehicle into “park” that it would go into and remain in park until she changed the
transmission lever to another setting. With this, Casey was a reasonable consumer and would
expect if put in “park” the vehicle she was driving should not run her over.
Additionally, we know Casey Smith believes she set the Ford G450 transmission lever to
“park” because she states it is “usual practice.” Setting this parking brake is also UPS policy;
whenever a driver leaves there vehicle whether the engine is running or not they must set the
parking brake. Considering Casey was an employee for 5 years, she is well aware of this
requirement. The fact of Casey being not only an employee for five years but an employee that
won multiple awards, one can assume she knows, understands, and practices the UPS policies
daily.

DISCUSSION

A reasonable consumer would not expect a vehicle to run them over, if the vehicle was
placed into “park.” In a design flaw, there is a consumer expectation test. This tests asks whether
or not the level of safety given by said product (Ford G450) is deficient compared to what a
reasonable consumer would expect (Mackley V. Red Tractors Inc, EY 1999). In Mackley V. Red
Tractors Inc. “the plaintiff, a farmer, would not expect his tractor to roll over him when the shift
lever was placed in “neutral” and the parking brake was set” (Mackley V. Red Tractors Inc, EY
1999). The same goes for Casey and her Ford G450. She as the reasonable consumer would
expect that her vehicle remain in park after she placed the transmission lever into “park.”
Additionally, we can believe that Casey Smith did in fact place the Ford G450 into park.
After considering her years with the company, knowledge of company policy, and her awareness
of other maintenance issues it is feasible that Casey would have placed the vehicle into park
properly. Ignoring the assumption of risk, we can state that Casey Smith had little fault in this.
According to the Modified Comparative Fault Rule “the damages party cannot recover if it is
more than 50% at fault. If the damaged party is 49% or less at fault, it can recover, but the
recovery will be reduced by its degree of fault” (Evergreen v. Green Tractors, Inc . EY 2011 ). In
this case, Casey would still recover because she was not over 50% at fault. (Again, ignoring the
assumption of risk).

CONCLUSION
Considering Casey is in fact a reasonable consumer, and that she would not expect the
Ford G450 to roll over her after put into park, I am certain that the Smiths have a tort claim
against Ford. Additionally, I believe The Smiths can recover, for both the economic and non
economic losses. Because of the specific injuries Casey ensued, it is feasible for the Smiths to
recover, however not the full $2.5 million. The loss of the ability to reproduce is a huge loss and
should be compensated however, we have to take into account that Casey was partially at fault.
Finally, regarding the economic loss, I would need to know how much work Casey had to miss
and how much her medical bills were. Without that information, my best educated assumption
would be that Casey’s medical bills combined with her missed income would be more than
$500,000. The likelihood of the Smiths winning a tort claim against Ford is very high. I believe
they will get the full compensation for economic losses; if not more, and part of the allocated
compensation for the non economic losses.