Jury duty over!

Jury duty for me is over. Except I have to go to the courthouse to get paid my $40/day for the 11 days I worked. I only get paid for 9 days tho, as that's how it works. Now that the case is over, I can freely discuss the case.</p>

The case was Vanisaker v. Chrysler.</p>

The Vanisakers bought a used 1997 Dodge Minivan they found on the side of the road with a for sale sign on it (in 2004). About 30 days later, they were driving home from a little league game (5 people in the van) when the brakes gave out approaching a busy intersection. Mrs. Vanasaker did what she could to try and stop the vehicle with no luck - it went through the red light into the intersection and hit another car. Both were doing about 45 MPH.</p>

The Vanisaker's 6 year old daughter was seriously injured - she suffered a complete spinal cord injury (severed) and became a paraplegic. She has no use of her legs, and can't control going to the bathroom (among other things). She also suffered some sort of head/brain injury (we were shown MRI scans), though this hasn't manifested itself to date - she does quite well in school, grades-wise.</p>

The police took the van to a Dodge dealer and had the brake system diagnosed as to why it failed, and it turned out to be a bypass in the master cylinder.</p>

The Vanasakers sued Chrysler for manufacturing a defective master cylinder. On the surface, the case had the elements of being a great story - injured/crippled little girl sues the goliath corporation that may have caused her injury.</p>

However, the plaintiff's case never got any real traction. The vehicle had 131,000+ miles on it and was 8 or 9 years old when it was bought used. It was hard to show that Chrysler had any control over how the vehicle was maintained, let alone that they could have known how many times and to whom it was sold over that time. The high mileage on the vehicle also was an indication that the vehicle was good for that many miles of good service. In my mind, and the rest of the jurors' minds, the case was basically over in the first 5 minutes of the opening statements...</p>

The plaintiffs tried to show that Chrysler manufactured the vehicle with defective seals in the master cylinder. In the process, we were taught virtually everything there is to know about automotive break systems - probably more than master mechanics even know, since we were shown in great detail the inner workings of master cylinders and the theory of how they operate.</p>

What the defense showed was that someone had poured transmission fluid into the master cylinder fluid reservoir, and the evidence was quite convincing that this is in fact what happened.</p>

The brake systems work on hydraulic pressure. The pressure is initiated by pressing the brake pedal which pushes a piston inside the master cylinder. The piston puts pressure on brake fluid in the cylinder which forces the fluid to the wheels where it in turn puts pressure on cylinders in the brake mechanisms that force the brake pads and shoes so they cause friction and slow down the vehicle. Over time, the pads and shoes wear down and it takes more distance to create contact with the disks and drums, so fluid is drawn from the reservoir to compensate for this extra distance.</p>

The friction of brake pads against disks or drum pads against drums causes enormous heat, so the brake fluid is carefully designed/chosen for high boiling point properties. In turn, the rubber seals in all the cylinders in the brake system are chosen to be compatible with the brake fluid.Mineral oils, such as transmission fluid (engine oil is another, and there are other mineral oils used in cars as well) damage the rubber components in the brake system. Specifically, in this van, the seals inside the master cylinder were grossly swollen to at least 2x their normal size, became softer, and ceased to perform their function. There was also a stain on the master cylinder reservoir consistent with someone spilling some sort of fluid while filling the reservoir.</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

The plaintiffs had only one expert witness, a PhD in mechanical engineering from UTEP. He examined the seals from the wrecked van's master cylinder under a microscope and at 100x found what he called "microfractures" in the rubber (3 of them) and claimed they weakened the seal and that over time these ripped and caused a fluid bypass in the master cylinder. If no pressure can be built in the master cylinder, the hydraulics don't work - fluid won't be forced to the wheel components. He also claimed that the process of bleeding the brakes done during the police inspection would have replaced all of the fluid in the brake system, including any mineral oil based contaminent.</p>

He was otherwise torn to shreds (credibility-wise) by the defense lawyers; this had an effect with most of the jury, though I thought the defense was doing its job but using misdirection to make the fellow look as bad as it came across.</p>

The problems with the microfracture theory were too numerous to overcome:</p>

1. The master cylinder and brake system is actually a dual system - there are two pistons and two brake lines; one brake line operates the front left/right rear brakes and the other operates the front right/left rear brakes. Pretty clever if you think about it, and a nifty safety feature. For the microfracture theory to make sense, both seals would have had to have failed at the same time (a statistically/probability ridiculous proposition) or one failed and the Vanisakers were driving the vehicle for a period of days/weeks with failing brakes that would clearly be evident to them and they did nothing about it.
2. The seals in question were clearly damaged and swollen by mineral oil contamination, so it was difficult to make the case these microfractures were there before the seals were bloated and damaged.
3. The disassembly of the master cylinder took a lot of physical force with air pressure being pumped into the cylinder. This force could have damaged the rubber components, and likely did.

Chrysler had four expert witnesses testify. The first was a fellow with 25 years experience at the company. He started working the assembly line, went to school and got a special degree in brake systems design, became a manager of several vehicles' brake systems design and assembly, designed numerous brake systems, and eventually moved into their R&D group (that primarly does research for lawsuits or warranty purposes). The second was a design engineer who worked at Bosch (Bosch manufactured the brake cylinder), he had 9 years experience. The third was a fellow who worked for Kitco, the comapny that manufactured the actual seals that went into the master cylinder. The fourth was a retired engineer from GM with all kinds of expertise and experience in the manufacturing and systems of automobiles.</p>

What I learned from the first three witnesses is the great degree of care the people who design and build cars take. The testing of the brake systems done by Chrysler (and other manufacturers) is downright impressive, and there's no reason to believe they don't actually do all this testing. For example, the master cylinders are tested by taking one and putting it in a car, running the car for about 150,000 miles (on test equipment), removing the master cylinder and putting it in a 2nd new car, running that car for 150K miles, doing it a third time, and then disassembling the brake system and analyzing the parts in great detail. Chrysler produced a test procedure document for this very set of tests that's about 100 pages long and very detailed. Bosch has similar kinds of testing on just the master cylinder components. Kitco has made 120,000,000 of these very seals between 1990 and 2002 and examines each and every one by hand and using mechanized tests. The first three experts claimed that there have been zero recalls or reports of defective parts in the master cylinders, period.</p>

The fourth expert performed and well-documented a number of tests to provide information for the case. The simplest test he did was to soak a seal in a solution of 10%/90% transmission/brake fluid and then again in a 50-50 solution. He then used calipers and a durometer to show the seals both swelled and otherwise became out of specification (hardness/softness). He bought 1997 exemplar Dodge minivans and :</p>

1. Introduced a 10%/90% mixture in the reservoir and drove the vehicle for 8 days. He had attached all kinds of sensors to the brake pedals and so on and produced graphs of how the brake system deteriorated over time.
2. Introduced a 50/50 mix and repeated the above with more disastrous results.
3. Filled the reservoir with a 10%/90% mix and timed how long it took for the lighter transmission fluid to float to the top/separate (like oil/water) - it took 15 minutes.
4. Repeated this with the 50/50 mix and got the same time
5. Used the identical brake bleeding system with the 10/90 mix and 50/50 mix and proved that forcing gallons of new brake fluid into the system in this manner did not flush out the transmission fluid at all.

He took photos of every step along the way, measured fluids in beakers and photographed those, and he even brought in the resulting fluids in jars so we could see with our own eyes.</p>

The case was submitted to the jury after 10 days of trial. At this point, we jurors were finally allowed to discuss the case, even among ourselves! It was tough all along to not talk about the case, and this was something we all felt. </p>

I felt it was highly important to consider all the evidence (stuff that wasn't shown in court but admitted as evidence), though it was a hard sell to the rest of the jurors. I saw at least one angle that was worth investigating - in the various photos taken of the vehicle post crash, the air bags were quite prominent. This got me to thinking about a different aspect of the vehicle - safety. The most disturbing fact to me all along was that 5 people were in the van, and 4 walked away from the emergency room with bumps and bruises while the 5th was so seriously hurt. What was it about the 5th person's situation that was so different that the injury was so radically worse?</p>

During the trial, the judge told us we jurors could ask questions of the witnesses by writting down the question, giving the paper to the baliff, who in turn would give it to the judge. The judge said he may or may not ask the question and would, upon request, explain why a question wasn't asked after the trial. The judge also said that asking questions was "discouraged" but I asked anyway. I asked the same question, in different forms, to several witnesses, but the judge never asked the question to any of them. My questions were along the lines of "why only 1 hurt?" and "was the girl wearing a seatbelt?" In fact, the evidence shown in court was "redacted" to hide any information about the girl's situation, and even a video tape taken of the vehicle some months later was edited to not show the back seat where the girl was sitting during the crash.</p>

We examined the photos and found one of the rear seatbelts was belted together - not likely she was belted in and the firemen/rescue workers would unbelt it and then belt it back together. The other belt was so clean, we deduced that it must have been wedged under the seat and never used. So she wasn't wearing a seatbelt. The ramifications of this are two-fold. First, it shows the Vanisackers weren't so safety conscious. Second, 3 of the 5 in the car weren't wearing seatbelts and walked away, so the question was still a burning one to me.</p>

I felt a case could be made that Chrysler advertised and sold an unsafe vehicle to families, and the lack of safety for passengers in the rear seat is a real defect. People do stupid things like shaving while driving, talking on cell phones, looking through CDs to play, adjusting the radio, women put on makeup, and so on. There's clearly a lot of automobile accidents (100's of thousands/year, no doubt). That autos are involved in accidents is an expected "use" of the vehicle ("expected use" being one of the required jury findings in a case of this sort). That the auto manufacturers put radios in cars that require people to be distracted from driving, or drink holders (drinking is a distraction) seems to me to be proof that the manufacturers may in fact accept that drivers do stupid things and more. It should therefore be incumbent on the manufacturers to make cars safe. Given that 4 of 5 walked away, a defect must exist, by definition.</p>

However, the safety case wasn't argued, and tho I could not find anything in the judge's instructions to the jury (given at the end, before closing statements by the lawyers) that prohibitted us from looking at this aspect of the case, the rest of the jurors either did not understand my reasoning or felt that it was out of bounds and could not be considered.</p>

The vote was 8-0 for the defendant (Chrysler) and was pretty much done in a few minutes. When we gave the verdict to the judge, a number of the jurors were in tears (4 women, 4 men in the end).</p>

After the trial, I stayed after and talked to the defense attorneys and witnesses. The plaintiffs quickly left the building, which is unfornate - I'd love to have talked with them as well. The defense attorneys immediately asked if I wanted to know the answer to my question (about the seatbelts). Turns out the girl wasn't wearing the seatbelt. The accident caused the car to spin around a few times, and the centrifical force threw her from the vehicle and she was struck by another car in the road. Knowing this makes the injury obviously more horrific in detail.</p>

It also turns out the Vanisakers sued the auto lot that sold them the car, and lost. And the Chrysler attorneys told me that they offered a generous settlement ($1M plus) that the Vanisackers turned down.</p>

I'd also add, unrelated to the specifics of the case, that there were 10 jurors selected. Aparently, they randomly chose 2 at the very end to be alternates, so only 8 of us deliberated. The 10 of us spent more time outside the court (waiting in a jury room where we ultimately deliberated) than we did in court, and we became 10 good friends. The baliff turned out to be a wonderful fellow with a great sense of humor (I'd walk by him and say "don't taze me bro!"). The judge was a fine judge and also had a decent sense of humor (there was laughter in the court occaisionally). The lawyers were excellent for both sides. It was something of a show, and though we jurors lost a little over 2 weeks of our freedom to do our civic duty, I think we're all happy to have gone through it together.</p>

If you all have any questions, feel free to ask.</p>

 

The plaintiffs could have called as many experts as they wanted. In fact, the did call other experts, particularly doctors and rehab specialists and even a financial advisor who produced an accounting of the girl's past expenses and expected future needs.</p>

FWIW</p>

</p>

 

It's really sad how the 6 year old girl was injured. I can't help but fault the parents for not making damn sure to have her in the car with a seatbelt.</p>

What was the history for this family getting their car serviced, specifically the brakes? Faulty brakes aren't something that just happens overnight. I know a lot of people put off replacing their brake pads and getting them checked on a regular basis.</p>

 

Front break pads at inspection were 15% (85% gone) and the back drums were 50%. The guy said he checked the brakes and all the fluids at least 3 times in the month he owned the vehicle, though he's not an expert mechanic or anything. He did get two new tires put on the car the very day of the accident, which cost about as much as a brake job, so it isn't clear he realized the brakes were failing or needed service. On the other hand, there was testimony that the tire shop told him he should have his brakes serviced (kinda hearsay) and the police report said that the wife mentioned that the brake pedal would go to the floor at stops, the car would creep forward, and the brakes would have to be reapplied to fully stop the vehicle.</p>

The problem with watching a case like this is that the testimony of people like the Vanisackers (or in general) has to be suspect. No two people see the same event the same way, and eye-witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. I wasn't sure what to make of all that testimony, I must admit. I basically got that she (was driving) came to the intersection, saw the red light, applied the brakes, they failed completely (went to the floor, zero friction), and I imagine it was just a complete panic situation. She and her husband aren't in lines of work that require being professionally observant (like a cop, for example), so I don't see any disingenousness in their faulty memories or descriptions of the events.</p>

On top of that, the cop who wrote the report basically caught up to them in a special room at the hospital that is used in fataility type emergencies, where doctors and priests come to comfort the friends/family of the victims. The girl's life was in real question at that point, so they certainly weren't focused on the details of the accident and were more likely suffering shock, grief, guilt, need of prayer, and that kind of thing. Testimony or answering questions under those circumstances make the answers questionable in their own right.</p>

What I've done here is condensed from two weeks of trial </p>

</p>

 

The family sued the shop that sold them the car and lost that suit, too. They bought it AS-IS, and were shown all kinds of documents, including ones that said that various systems (including the brakes) could be faulty.</p>

The judge gave us very specific instructions on how we were to rule on the case. Specifically, it was a product liability case and a set of 5 criteria had to be met to find against Chrysler. The verdict form the foreman signed had 4 questions on it, and if we voted (6 out of 8) "no" on any one of them, it was a finding for Chrysler. We didn't make it past the 1st question.</p>

</p>