The first day of trial in a wrongful death suit against Ford Motor Co. over its Excursion SUV saw a safety expert call Ford “irresponsible” for failing to physically test the Excursion's roof prior to a 2009 fatal rollover crash involving one of the vehicles.

Brian Herbst, a vehicle roof safety expert, described multiple structural failures in the roof of a 2000-model-year Ford Excursion, causing it to crush during a rollover crash that killed Rafael Trejo. During testimony Tuesday, Herbst said that Ford typically performed physical safety testing on its vehicles' roofs. Herbst testified that such tests would have revealed the likelihood the Excursion’s roof would be crushed in a rollover, but “for whatever reason (Ford) chose not to do any physical testing on this particular” model's roof."

Trejo’s wife Teresa Trejo is suing Ford for $27 million, claiming the vehicle’s defective design and the company’s failure to properly test the vehicle caused her husband’s death when the roof collapsed.

In opening statements Tuesday, Teresa Trejo’s attorney Jody Mask told jurors that even Ford's simulated testing of the Excursion's roof showed that it could only support 1.12 times the vehicle’s weight, while company design criteria required that lighter vehicles support at least 1.725 times their own weight. “The Excursion failed, and failed miserably,” in its simulated testing, Mask said.

However, Ford’s attorney Vaughn Crawford argued in opening statements that physics, rather than the vehicle's roof design, caused Rafael Trejo’s death. Using a vehicle model to demonstrate, Crawford told jurors in opening statements that the “forces and violence of (the Trejos’) two-and-a-half rollover crash” threw Rafael Trejo inside the SUV, fatally injuring him before the roof collapsed. “That’s physics, and it’s real engineering,” Crawford said.

Ford produced the Excursion, the largest and heaviest SUV in North America during its production run, from 2000 through 2005. It stopped selling the model in the U.S. in 2005 and completely ceased sales one year later.

In the nearly eight years since the Florida Supreme Court decertified Engle v. Liggett Group Inc., CVN has broadcast more than 100 Engle progeny proceedings. We first introduced our Engle Trading Cards in 2011 as a light-hearted yet useful way to track some of the key individuals and trials in the ongoing litigation. Because those cards were so popular, and because Engle progeny cases continue to play a key role in tobacco litigation, we're introducing Series 2 of our the trading cards. Each Tuesday, we'll issue a new card featuring a case or attorney that has made a significant impact in this landmark litigation.

The Trial: Ken Ellis v. R.J. Reynolds

Each Friday we highlight the week's Engle progeny tobacco trials and look ahead to next week.

Baum v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

Miami—Rachel Baum’s late husband Paul suffered from a smoking-related respiratory disease for 20 years, including the last half-decade of his life that “bordered on the horrific,” Baum’s attorney told jurors in closing arguments before asking for up to $24.9 million in compensatory damages in the Engle progeny tobacco suit.

In presenting a range of damages based on per-hour calculations for both survivorship and wrongful death claims, plaintiff’s counsel Jeffrey Sloman reminded jurors of the progression of Paul Baum’s illness and Rachel’s efforts to care for him as his condition worsened until his death in 2012.

“She took full-time care of him beginning in 2003. She made his struggle better. She did everything on Earth to try and find some cure for him.” Sloman said. “When I say Rachel Baum is an angel on Earth, I’m not exaggerating.” Sloman told jurors Rachel Baum was entitled to between $16.6 million and $24.9 million on her survivorship claim or between $11.4 and $15.3 million on her wrongful death claim. Baum is also seeking punitive damages in the case.

Rachel Baum is suing tobacco manufacturers R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Philip Morris Tobacco Co, and the Liggett Group, claiming their cigarette manufacturing and marketing practices led to Paul Baum’s respiratory disease and death. After recounting evidence of tobacco industry efforts to conceal smoking’s dangers while ensuring cigarettes remained addictive, Sloman asked, “Why do they claim my client is at fault? Mr. Baum’s fault in this case is that he didn’t try hard enough, he didn’t try soon enough, to quit smoking. That’s it. All the other things I just went through (are) on them. It’s what they did.”

Paul Baum, a smoker for 50 years, died from what Sloman characterized as a nearly 20-year battle with chronic obstructive respiratory disease. During his closing statement, Sloman reminded jurors of multiple medical reports that diagnosed Paul with COPD.

However, the tobacco manufacturers contend Paul Baum’s respiratory problems were actually caused by relapsing polychondritis, a rare cartilage disease unrelated to smoking, and that he ultimately died from a heart attack. Cory Hohnbaum, representing R.J. Reynolds, reminded jurors that only 10 out of 29 pulmonologists who examined Paul reported that he had COPD. Hohnbaum also recounted evidence that Paul had coronary artery disease and that “acute myocardial infarction” or heart attack, was listed as the immediate cause of death on his death certificate. In refuting plaintiff’s contention that the heart attack was related to Paul’s COPD, Hohnbaum said, “The notion that everybody dies from a heart attack… is simply not the case. Otherwise why would you even have a death certificate to tell you what people died from?”

Closings concluded, and the case went to the jury at about 5 p.m. this afternoon.

Related Information

Watch live and on-demand video of the trial.

Read Experts Dispute Whether Smoker Suffered from COPD in Florida Tobacco Suit.