Las Vegas—Jurors awarded the widow of a Ford SUV passenger $4.5 million in her suit stemming from a 2009 rollover crash that killed her husband and crushed the vehicle’s roof.

The jury, which began deliberations late Monday, returned a verdict Tuesday afternoon finding that the roof of the 2000 Ford Excursion SUV in which Rafael Trejo died was defectively designed. The award to Rafael Trejo's widow Teresa included $2.5 million for loss of income, $1.5 million for grief and sorrow, and $500,000 for Rafael Trejo’s pain and suffering before his death.

Rafael Trejo died in a single vehicle rollover accident that crushed the roof of the Ford Excursion SUV in which he was a seatbelted passenger. Rafael's wife, Teresa Trejo sued Ford for $27 million, claiming that the roof was not strong enough to support the weight of the vehicle, which was the heaviest production SUV in North America while it was manufactured. Plaintiff, represented by Jody Mask, claimed that the roof's collapse fractured Rafael's neck, pinning him inside the vehicle and suffocating him.

However, Ford, represented by Vaughn Crawford, argued that the SUV's roof was properly designed and that, in any event, the roof-crush did not kill Rafael Trejo. Ford claimed Trejo died from a "diving injury," when the rollover crash slammed Rafael's head against the vehicle’s roof, fracturing his neck and killing him, before the roof collapsed. During closing statements, Crawford criticized the testimony of plaintiff's experts as "courtroom engineering" that ignored the motion of Rafael's body within the vehicle as the SUV rolled over. "Do you think that if some testing would have proven any of (plaintiff's) arguments... do you think you would have seen the testing by plaintiffs?" Vaughn asked jurors. "Let's not check common sense at the door when we go back to deliberate."

In his closing statement, Mask reminded jurors that Dr. Ross Zumwalt, who performed the autopsy on Rafael Trejo,testified that Rafael did not have a skull fracture or brain swelling that would indicate that his head struck SUV's roof during the rollover. "Ford's trying to sell you a diving theory," Mask said. "That's not what happened in this case."

Mask also reminded jurors of evidence that Ford never physically tested the safety of the Excursion's roof before selling it, and that Ford's computer testing showed that the Excursion did not meet Ford's roof-strength requirements for lighter-weight vehicles. which he claimed led to Rafael Trejo's death. "Ford stuck their head in the sand before the ever put this vehicle on the road," Mask said.

"If you think that a 5'4" man should be able to walk away from a 27 mile-an-hour crash, you will return a verdict for Ms. Trejo," Mask said.

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.

Boston Scientific prevailed on a jury verdict today in a key Massaschusetts pelvic mesh suit against the company. Maria Cardenas v. Boston Scientific.

After two-and-a-half days of deliberations, jurors found Boston Scientific's Obtryx pelvic mesh device was not defectively designed and that the company adequately warned Maria Cardenas's treating physician of the possibility of erosion inside the body. Cardenas, who had the Obtryx pelvic mesh device implanted in 2008, sued Boston Scientific company after the device eroded inside her and had to be removed.

The verdict may signal a trend in Massachusetts suits against Boston Scientific and its pelvic mesh products. In July, the company prevailed in the the state's first suit against it and its Pinnacle pelvic mesh device. The company faces hundreds of potential lawsuits in Massachusetts alone over its pelvic mesh devices. Nationwide, there are more than 100,000 claims against Boston Scientific and other pelvic mesh manufacturers.

The week-long Cardenas trial turned on testimony surrounding the product’s design and conflicting opinions on its safety and risks. Cardenas's attorneys argued that Boston Scientific’s own internal documents pushed sales of the pelvic mesh device despite questions concerning its safety, and that the company failed to warn of device shrinkage of 20% or more inside the body. Her counsel also claimed that Boston Scientific's expert witness testimony conflicted with their own previously published articles questioning the mesh. "Maybe their experts are not shooting straight with you guys," Cardenas's attorney Doug Monsour told jurors in closing statements. "They're telling you Boston Scientific's story."

By contrast, Boston Scientific’s counsel offered testimony from experts that its mesh had a strong history of safe use, and that its directions for use clearly warned of the possibility of erosion. In closing arguments, Boston Scientific's attorney Susan Murphy reminded jurors of of more than 20 clinical studies on the pelvic mesh's safe design and expert testimony endorsing its use. "The community (of urologists) does not believe this product to be unreasonably dangerous. To the contrary, they believe it to be safe and effective," she said.

Outside Massachusetts, other manufacturers have fared worse in pelvic mesh litigation. In July, a New Jersey Superior Court upheld an $11.1 million verdict in Linda Gross v. Ethicon, one of the state’s bellwether pelvic mesh cases. That trial, recorded by CVN, led to a jury finding that Ethicon, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, misrepresented its product and failed to warn Gross’s physician of its risks. Earlier this year, a Texas jury awarded Linda Batiste $1.2 million in her pelvic mesh suit against Ethicon. In August, manufacturer C.R. Bard agreed to settle more than 500 pelvic mesh suits pending in Texas.

Related Information

View the verdict.

View on-demand video of the case.

Read Plaintiff Testifies in Massachusetts's Second Pelvic Mesh Trial Against Boston Scientific.

Read Boston Scientific Wins First Jury Decision in Massachusetts Pelvic Mesh Suit.