Robert Hetsler, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, et al.

Case Background

Plaintiff Robert Hetsler, filed the product liability lawsuit on April 24, 2020, in the Florida State Circuit Court of Duval County (Case number: 2020-CA-002410). Judge Waddell A. Wallace III presided over the case.

Cause

On November 6, 2017, Robert Hetsler purchased a 2016 Ford Roush Mustang (VIN #1FA6P8CF9G5247461) from World Imports USA in Jacksonville, Florida. The vehicle had less than 1,000 miles on its odometer and only one previous owner. World Imports USA informed Hetsler that the car was free of defects and safe for use, without providing any warnings regarding potential fire danger.

Ten days later, on November 16, 2017, Hetsler was seated in the vehicle in a parking lot behind Southbank Pharmacy in Jacksonville. Suddenly, a fire ignited outside the engine compartment. The fire rapidly engulfed the entire vehicle, including the passenger compartment. When Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office and Fire Rescue arrived at the scene, they found the vehicle consumed by fire and Hetsler approximately 100 feet away, disoriented and severely burned.

Injuries

Hetsler suffered catastrophic third and fourth-degree burns over approximately 74% of his body, from his hairline to his belly button. Only the front of his face to his collarbone remained unscathed. Despite extensive skin damage, he did not sustain significant lung damage or facial burns. He was transported to UF Health Shands Burn Center for treatment and remained in a coma in intensive care for at least six months. Doctors provided inpatient intensive care for nearly 18 months before releasing Hetsler in May 2019. His injuries required amputation of both hands. He also suffered from disc impingement in his cervical spine, required a tracheostomy, and needed regular assistance with daily living activities. Following his discharge, Hetsler underwent extensive therapy and treatment to regain some functionality. He continues to require regular medical follow-ups and underwent numerous surgeries.

Damages

Due to the fire and his injuries, Hetsler incurred extensive medical expenses from his prolonged hospitalization, multiple surgeries, and ongoing medical care. His thriving businesses were devastated, causing significant financial harm. He lost earnings and earning capacity due to his injuries’ impact on his professional life. Hetsler suffered permanent disfigurement, disability, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of capacity for enjoyment of life. His injuries necessitated long-term care and ongoing assistance with daily activities. The complaint states that Hetsler’s losses are permanent and continuing, and he will continue to suffer these losses into the future.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

 

 Claims

The complaint alleges multiple claims against the defendants in Product liability lawsuit:

Negligence against Ford Motor Company and Roush Performance: The lawsuit claims that both companies breached their duty of care. They are accused of negligently designing, manufacturing, assembling, testing, inspecting, selling, distributing, maintaining, servicing, and repairing the vehicle. Specific allegations include a failure to incorporate adequate fire prevention measures. The companies are also accused of failing to warn of fire dangers. Additionally, they are alleged to have failed to perform adequate testing for fire risks.

Strict Liability against Ford Motor Company and Roush Performance: The complaint asserts that the vehicle was defective and unreasonably dangerous when it left the defendants’ control. It claimed that the vehicle had a propensity to unintentionally combust, lacked adequate fire prevention measures, and that the sellers did not provide proper warnings.

Negligence and Strict Liability under Res Ipsa Loquitur: The lawsuit includes alternative claims under this doctrine, asserting that the type of incident (spontaneous vehicle fire) does not ordinarily occur without negligence or product defect.

Joint Venture Liability between Ford and Roush: The complaint alleges that Ford and Roush operated as a joint venture in creating the modified Roush Mustang, sharing control, profits, and losses, and thus should be jointly liable for the defective vehicle.

Negligence against World Imports USA: The lawsuit claims World Imports USA breached its duty by negligently distributing, testing, marketing, inspecting, and selling the defective vehicle without proper inspection or warning.

Breach of Express Warranty against World Imports USA: The complaint alleges that World Imports USA breached its express warranty that its vehicles were thoroughly inspected and safe for use. 

Defense

Ford argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the company, as Ford was not “at home” in Florida and the suit did not arise from Ford’s conduct in the state. The company denied liability for any defects in the 2016 Ford Mustang involved in the incident and claimed that any defects resulted from alterations made after the vehicle left Ford’s control. Ford also asserted that the plaintiff’s own negligence caused or contributed to his injuries.

The company raised multiple affirmative defenses. These included failure to state a claim, spoliation of evidence, comparative fault, compliance with industry standards and federal safety regulations, misuse of the product, and failure to mitigate damages. Ford argued that any damages should be apportioned among all responsible parties. Ford also claimed that the company was entitled to various setoffs. Additionally, Ford demanded a jury trial on all triable issues. Ford requested judgment in its favor, along with costs and other appropriate relief.

Expert Testimony

The plaintiffs brought in fire and engineering specialists Richard Dyer, Brian Herbst, and Steve Koontz to analyze the fire’s origin, spread, and vehicle mechanics. They enlisted medical experts William Anderson, Daniel Buffington, and Philip Fidler to detail Hetsler’s injuries and treatment. Economic and rehabilitation specialists Frederick Raffa and Ruth Rimmer addressed financial losses and future care needs. Dale Berry provided expertise on prosthetics, while Cindy Rutter, a burn survivor and family therapist, offered insights on Hetsler’s prognosis and care requirements.

Ford countered with its own roster of experts. Fire investigation specialists David B. Smith, Shawn P. Ray, and Raymond J. Thompson examined the fire’s cause and origin. Engineering experts Jan Olson and Mark Fleming analyzed vehicle design and materials. Financial specialists Bradley Borden and Cynthia Stephens tackled economic damages and income loss issues. Medical professionals Christopher Spath and Elliot B. Rose provided testimony on toxicology and future treatment costs. Rehabilitation counselor Bruce H. Brawner addressed life care planning.

Jury Verdict

On February 20, 2024, the jury reached a verdict on Robert Hetsler’s damages claim with the following awards in Product liability lawsuit:

Medical and Hospital Expenses:

  • $39,390,402 for past expenses
  • $ 12,00,000 for future expenses

Pain and Suffering, Disability, Disfigurement, Mental Anguish, Inconvenience, and Loss of Capacity for Enjoyment of Life:

  • $12,000,000 for past damages
  • $55,000,000 for future damages

Losses Sustained by V.H. Due to Robert Hetsler’s Injury:

  • $2,000,000 for past damages
  • $9,100,000 for future damages

Additional Losses for S.H. Due to Robert Hetsler’s Injury:

  • $2,000,000 for past losses
  • $9,100,000 for future losses

Court Documents:

Available Upon Request