Litigation: Case Study
Case: Anita Sorenson was injured in a one-vehicle accident that occurred as she was driving east on Highway 106. She was driving her friend’s 1998 Ford Explorer that had been manufactured by the Ford Motor Company and sold by Davis Motors, a local Ford dealer. Anita told the police that the accident occurred when she was “just driving along and all of a sudden I heard a loud bang and then felt a big bump. The Explorer left the road and rolled over. When I woke up the Explorer was in a ditch and I was hanging by my seat belt upside down.” Several weeks after the accident, Anita’s friend, Randy Monroe, received a letter from Ford notifying all Explorer owners that 1998 Explorers were being recalled due to a problem with their Bridgestone/Firestone tires. If Anita would like to sue, she must choose whether to sue Davis Motors (the retailer), Ford Motor Company (the manufacturer of the Explorer), Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (the manufacturer of the tire), Randy Monroe (her friend), or all four.
For the case above, list the nonlegal advantages and disadvantages of choosing to sue only Davis Motors. List the advantages and disadvantages of choosing to sue only Ford. List the advantages and disadvantages of choosing to sue only Bridgestone/Firestone. List the advantages and disadvantages of choosing to sue only Randy Monroe. List the advantages and disadvantages of choosing to sue two, three, or all four at the same time. The claimant must determine the nature of the lawsuit. On what legal theory could and should the claimant base his or her claim?
Litigation
The act of litigation is defined by Bouvier Law Dictionary as “[t]he process of any criminal or civil action…In most cases, however, litigation refers to civil litigation, (Sheppard, S., p. 1650). Black’s Law states litigation to be “the process of carrying on a lawsuit…the lawsuit itself;” while litigator is defined as “a trial lawyer; a lawyer who prepares cases for a trial” noting that this includes conducting discovery and pretrial motions, trying cases, and handling appeals, (Garner, B., pp. 1119, 1120). The term litigator is defined as by the Bouvier Law Dictionary as [a]n attorney representing another in court, (Sheppard, S., p. 1651). As attorney Martin A. Frey dislcoses; “[b]efore a lawsuit is initiated, a dispute must exist and one of the parties must feel, for whatever reason, that a court’s intervention is necessary to resolve the dispute…The attorney determines whether the law furnishes a remedy for this dispute. If the courts do not provide redress for the claimant’s injury, a lawsuit would be a waste of time and money,” (Frey, M., p. 291).
Case Study
Anita Sorenson was injured in a vehicular accident that occurred under normal driving conditions, due to the negligence of the tire manufacturer; due to the omission of investigative practices, not conducted by Ford; due to the alternative interests of Davis Motors, alternative to that of the safety of their customers. Moreover, Randy Monroe holds a degree of liability for failing to properly inspect the capacity of his vehicle to be safely driven on the interstate; was there no warning conditions that could’ve been discovered by Monroe, prior to lending his subpar uncalibrated vehicle to Sorenson. The culmination of neglect from all four parties resulted in physical injury to plaintiff Anita Sorenson; aside from the detriment to her emotional and mental state.
Randy Monroe’s 1998 Ford Explorer was responsible for the accident, sold by Davis Motors. No party possessed mens rea, or a guilty state of mind, during the transaction; id est the act of malice was not present during any of the transactions leading up to the accident this case seeks to bring a resolution form. The companies’ negligence voided their obligation to safety and efficency, causing the actus reus or the . The origin of this disputation resides in the negligence that occurred during the manufacturing process, whereby Bridgestone/Firestone released a faulty product into the market, injuring its consumers. Randy Monroe, received a letter from Ford several weeks after the accident notifying all Explorer owners that its 1998 model was being recalled due to a “problem” with their Bridgestone/Firestone tires. Bridgestone/Firestone’s problem has been well documented with legal binding precedence, recalling tires as early as 1992, (Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court (Rios) (1992)). Anita was injured due to the tire’s malfunctioning; she therefore resides as the real-party-of-interest; attorney Martin Frey defines that “[t]he real-party-in-interest rules ensure that the person who will be named plaintiff is the person who possesses the substantive rights upon which the lawsuit will be based,” (Frey, M., p. 297). According to the Legal Information Institute (LII), ”[s]ubstantive law is law that governs the original rights and obligations of individuals. Substantive law may derive from the common law, statutes, or a constitution,” (LII). Therefore an infringement of rights has occurred, as the driver was provided no warning of the deadly conditions of the vehicle; her survival grants merit to engage in litigation, as Anita is the real-party-in-interest.
Defining Real-Party-in-Interest
The Legal Information Institute (LII) notes that the phrase real-party-in-interest is “[a] real party in interest is the person or entity who has the right to bring suit even though someone else would ultimately benefit from the suit if it is successful,” (LII). Martin A. Frey describes, “[t]he real-party-in-interest rules are intended to protect potential defendants from harassing and duplicative litigation,” (Frey, M., p. 297).
Defining Legal Capacity
Attorney Martin Frey states, “[t]he parties (plaintiff and defendant) must have legal capacity to be qualified to appear as a named party in the lawsuit. The legal capacity rules deal with the status of the party and not the rights of the parties involved,” (Frey, M., p. 297). The LII defines capacity as “the ability to make a rational decision based upon all relevant facts and considerations,” (LII).
Case Law
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court (Rios) (1992)
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); “[a]t 11:00 am on Wednesday, August 9, 2000, Bridgestone/Firestone (Firestone) and Ford announced jointly that Firestone will recall approximately 14.4 million tires that contain a safety-related defect. (Most of the tires in question were original equipment on Ford vehicles, primarily the Ford Explorer, although a small number were used as original equipment on other manufacturers' vehicles, and they have been used as replacement tires on a wide variety of models).” The NHTSA added that “[t]he recall will cover all P235/75 R15 Firestone ATX and ATX II tires (from 1991 to the present) and all P235/75R15 Wilderness AT tires (from 1996 to the present) manufactured at Firestone's Decatur, IL plant, (NHTSA). The Court examined the death of Lydia Consuela Rios, who was killed August 14, 1988 due to Firestone “721” tires. The case states that the “[r]eal parties' complaint pleads Firestone's liability under theories of negligent design and manufacture and failure to warn; breach of express or implied warranty; and strict liability for defective design, manufacture and failure to warn. Petitioner answered the complaint with various affirmative defenses,” (Justia). The Court decreed that "in the ordinary course of the law, the petitioner is without an adequate remedy. (Omaha Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 209 Cal. App. 3d 1266, 1274-1275 [258 Cal. Rptr. 66].)”, adding that “Apparently, real parties have conducted no discovery concerning Firestone's defenses,” (Justia).
The precedent of the ruling in 1992’s Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. v. Superior Court (Rios) (1992) gives Anita Sorenson the ability to utilize the same legal theory, stating grievances of negligent design and manufacture and failure to warn; breach of express or implied warranty; and strict liability for defective design, manufacture and failure to warn. Relevancy and scope are additional criteria needed to ensure Anita is granted the relief sought.
Legal Standing
Anita has legal standing to bring the case before a federal court; any lawsuit may be dismissed unless brought by a proper plaintiff, (Frey, M., p. 297). Attorney Martin Frey writes that “[i]n many ways, pretrial is more important to the outcome of the dispute than the trial,” (Frey, M., p. 297). Frey reveals that, “[m]ost cases, well over 90 percent, are resolved before a judgment or decree is ever rendered. Filing a complaint has proven to be a tactical weapon to stimulate serious negotiation and mediation. Also, if a court has a court-annexed arbitration program, the filing of a complaint may be designed to take advantage of that program,” (Frey, M., p. 316).
Davis Motors:
The nonlegal advantage of choosing to sue only Davis Motors includes; Anita may be able to take advantage of the court-annexed arbitration program, rather than proceed with litigation. This would allow for a binding adjudication, avoiding court costs, filing fees, the continued expense of attorneys; and ensure a brief resolution. The nonlegal disadvantages of choosing to sue only Davis Motors include; it may lead to court-annexed arbitration, resulting in a less-than-favorable ruling. Anita must accept the ruling, as arbitration is legally binding and cannot be contested, unless provable violative procedure has occurred.
Ford:
An advantage of choosing to sue only Ford includes; that the company is likely dealing with an inundation of lawsuits from the faulty tires they chose for their vehicles; should they fail to respond to the summons within the time allowed (20 days in federal cases), the court may issue a default judgment against Ford, ruling in favor of Anita. Ford has been convicted of negligence in the past; Anita’s accident was clearly caused by the negligence and oversight of Ford Motors. Davis Motors trusted Ford Motors, as did Randy Monroe; therefore, it was the obligation of Ford Motors to investigate the efficacy and safety of their tires before putting them on; the same would be true should Ford have chosen an alternate company for tires. The disadvantages of choosing to sue only Ford include; that the litigants would lose control over the outcome of their adjudication, and do not resolve their own dispute, (Frey, M., p. 316). Ford will likely shift the blame to Bridgestone/Firestone, implementing a degree of uncertainty into the preponderance of evidence.
Bridgestone/Firestone:
The advantages of choosing to sue only Bridgestone/Firestone include; the ability to utilize the same legal theory, whereby the company was held liable for their faulty product after the mass recall enacted on August 9th, 2000. Additionally, the trial will be public; Frey denotes that “[a] trial also gives the plaintiff’s grievance public exposure since the trial will be open to the public, including the press, (p. 316). This level of public exposure is likely to be influential over the response of the tire manufacturer. Correlative to the advantage of bringing forth suit against Ford, Bridgestone/Firestone is certainly dealing with an overwhelming amount of lawsuits; should they fail to respond to the summons within the time allowed (20 days in federal cases), the court may issue a default judgment against Bridgestone/Firestone, ruling in favor of Anita. The disadvantages of choosing to sue only Bridgestone/Firestone include; the ability for the party to divert blame; as their product has passed through two other facilities before being driven by the driver. Bridgestone/Firestone's faulty tires should have been witnessed by Ford, yet the company willingly purchased their poorly designed products. There is no indication of the condition of the vehicle when it was lent to Anita, therefore there exist variables that may inhibit a preponderance of the evidence, potentially resulting in the dismissal of the case, should she choose to pursue suing Bridgestone. Anita is technically not Firestone/Bridgestone's customer, as no transaction had occurred prior; Anita would have better luck suing the company she paid, Ford; over Bridgestone/Firestone.
Randy Monroe:
An advantage of choosing to sue only Randy Monroe is that Anita’s case holds precedent; Monroe is likely an easier case to litigate, as the parties are readily available and consist of two individuals, rather than a corporation. The disadvantages of choosing to sue only Randy Monroe include; Anita is unlikely to gain the full relief sought for her grievances. As Martin Frey states, “[t]he plaintiff must consider that whoever ‘loses’ at the trial court may appeal to a higher court, thereby increasing the already substantial transaction costs. The plaintiff also must consider that even if he or she ‘wins,’ the defendant may not voluntarily ‘pay up’ and the judgment will need to be enforced. The plaintiff also must consider whether the defendant has the resources to pay the judgment. If not, the plaintiff achieves a hollow victory,” (Frey, M. p. 316). Secondly, Anita cannot use Randy Monroe’s testimony to support her case, as the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution bars forced self-incrimination. This means she will have less pretrial evidence during the discovery process, limiting her ability to properly advocate her position on the court.
Sue Them All:
The advantage of choosing to sue two, three, or all four at the same time is that Anita is likely to resolve her dispute. According to the Legal Information Institute; “joint and several is when two or more defendants acting in concert or independently injure the plaintiff and the resulting damage cannot be allocated to a particular defendant; therefore, all of the defendants are liable for the entirety of plaintiff’s injury as well as the entire amount of the judgment.” All parties were jointly negligent, therefore are liable to compensate injured consumers for their faulty products. Conversely, the consumers of Bridgestone/Firestone is Ford; not the consumer; although the consumer was injured due to joint negligence, Ford made the conscious decision to use a tire manufacturer with a horrendous track record of faulty products resulting in death and injury. The disadvantages of choosing to sue two, three, or all four at the same time include; Anita is likely to encounter Res Judicia, (claim preclusion); and Collateral Estoppel, (issue preclusion). In both instance; should joint negligence be denied, and a ruling be adjudicated to one party, additional grievances may be dismissed on the grounds of Res Judicia or Collateral Estoppel. A second disadvantage is alongside the simultaneous demise of all existing lawsuits upon the adjudication bringing suit against one party, the extreme costs incurred will negate the benefit sought for relief by the claimant.
Monetary Analysis of Litigation:
Litigation may not be as cost-effective as other methods of dispute resolution, due to the need to pay filing fees, court costs, attorney fees, hiring expert witnesses, and other incurred costs along the way. Pre-trial discovery can be costly; therefore reaching a settlement before trial is more desirable in the majority of cases. Conversely, if the court grants the motion to dismiss, the litigation ends in favor of the plaintiff, (Frey, M., p. 302). Therefore it may work in the claimant’s favor to proceed with litigation while remaining open to the idea of engaging in methods of alternative dispute resolution.
New Testament Litigation
The New Testament decrees that Christians are to be the example of God’s image; the light in the darkness (Mat 5:14); as we pass through the valley of death (Psa 23:4), we can exude joy and implement divine strategy to inspire others to pick up their sword and climb up from the pit of disputation (Gen 41:14-16). The Old Testament points to contemporary jurisprudence under the New Covenant; whereby man himself is a living sacrifice, following the work of Jesus. We must judge for ourselves what is honorable, what is right, and differentiate from what is considered morally wrong. Individuals are strongly advised to settle matters between their own parties before allowing a third party to adjudicate their fate, (Luke 12:57-59). Attorney Martin Frey concludes that “[e]ven if a party could be sued, the question of whether that party should be sued remains,” (Frey, M., p. 297). As we are reminded in 1 Corinthians; “[f]urthermore, how dare you take a fellow believer to court! It is wrong to drag him before the unrighteous to settle a legal dispute. Isn’t it better to take him before God’s holy believers to settle the matter?” (1 Corinthians 6:1; TPT). We remain guided by His Holy Spirit through Luke that, “[i]f your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them. Even if they sin against you seven times in a day and seven times come back to you saying ‘I repent,’ you must forgive them.” (Luke 17:3-4; NIV). This message not only speaks to the accused; but to the accuser; those accused of committing an act causing grievance should attempt to handle the matters outside of the courts, avoiding dispute altogether (Hos 4:4a). The Old Testament resonates with this message whereby Isaiah scribes “[r]emind me. Let’s argue the case together. Recount the facts, so that you may be vindicated,” (Isaiah 43:26; CSB). In Acts, Paul gives an example in favor of the pursuance of litigation; whereby he appealed to Festus and his council, proclaiming, “I am standing before Caesar’s tribunal, where I ought to be tried. To the Jews I have done no wrong, as you yourself know very well. If then I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death. But if there is nothing to their charges against me, no one can give me up to them. I appeal to Caesar,” (Acts 25:10-12; ESV).
Conclusion
Anita bears the legal capacity to engage in litigation, she is the real-party-in-interest; therefore she can select the party responsible, and proceed with the lawsuit. Anita could sue the automotive dealer and settle the matter out of court; however she should focus her efforts on suing Ford, as they chose to put the subpar tires onto the car, without themselves considering to implement an inspection of its quality. Ford decided to put their name on an unsafe product, thereby infringing upon the consumer’s trust; Ford has far more resources than the local car dealer, or an individual like Randy Monroe. Moreover, Bridgestone/Firestone could state that the claimant was not a customer, dismissing the charges. Should Anita decide to pursue a claim of joint negligence, she must prove accountability of the multiple defendants involved. Regardless of Anita’s decision of how to base her claim, her case is merited with legal capacity.
Bibliography
Garner, B.A. (2021). Black's Law Dictionary, Eleventh Edition. St. Paul, MN: Thomson Reuters.
ICSW. (Accessed on December 7th, 2023). Firestone Tire Recall. https://icsw.nhtsa.gov/Firestone/.
LII. (Accessed on December 7th, 2023). capacity | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/capacity.
LII. (Accessed on December 7th, 2023). real party in interest | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/real_party_in_interest.
Justia. https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/7/1384.html
Sheppard, S.M. (2012). The Wolter Kluwer Bouvier Law Dictionary; Desk Edition Volume 1: A-L. Wolter Kluwer: New York, NY.