Dykema wins 1-hour defense verdict for Kia in $200M wrongful death trial

A five-week wrongful death trial over an alleged vehicle defect ended in about an hour of jury deliberations, as Orange County jurors returned a defense verdict for Kia America Inc. in a case seeking $200 million in damages, concluding that the defense's explanation of the crash was more persuasive.

James P. Feeney

Dykema Gossett PLLC trial lawyers James P. Feeney and Dommond E. Lonnie, who represented Kia, said in an interview Friday that the outcome turned on simplifying complex engineering issues through visuals, physical models and tightly focused expert testimony, as well as fully engaged jurors despite the complex evidence.

"The jurors were very attentive," Feeney said. "My experience has always been that if jurors are paying attention, by the time you get to the end of the trial, they're ready to discuss it and decide."

Dommond E. Lonnie

The case, Vernon Raggins et al. v. Kia America, Inc. et al., 30-2021-01218115, (Orange Cty. Super. Ct., filed Aug. 25, 2021) was tried before Orange County Superior Court Judge Sandy N. Leal. The verdict was rendered on April 14.

The lawsuit arose from an Aug. 25, 2019, rear-end collision involving a 2017 Kia Forte that had come to a stop on a freeway and was struck from behind by a Ford E-250 van traveling at 65 miles an hour, propelling the Kia more than 700 feet and resulting in the death of a 7-year-old passenger.

The plaintiffs, represented by Kenneth J. Melrose in Lompoc, claimed that the constant velocity shaft (CV), or axle, was defectively designed or manufactured, and fractured before the collision, causing the Kia to suddenly lose power.

"From the date of the purchase until the time of the accident, the subject vehicle suffered from several issues including rattling sounds and puffs of smoke when accelerating," Melrose wrote in the complaint. He did not respond to phone and email requests for comment.

Dykema countered that the fracture resulted from a single overload event caused by the rear-end impact and pointed to the vehicle's condition and maintenance history.

Lonnie said one of the decisive moments at trial was the defense reconstruction expert's testimony. "Our accident reconstruction expert really laid out very clearly how the crash occurred, when the CV shaft fractured, and the evidence that showed it fractured as a result of the crash."

To make that theory accessible, the defense used what the attorneys described as a layered presentation of physical and digital exhibits, including photographs, computer animation, simulations and physical exemplars. Feeney said the defense also combined older presentation methods with newer courtroom technology, including a large table diagram placed directly in front of the jury box and scale models showing how the vehicles interacted during impact.

According to Feeney, a major part of the defense theory was showing that the Forte lifted about 8 inches at initial impact and remained in the air while being pushed about 17 feet, helping explain how the shaft broke during the crash sequence.

"I think that was a real highlight," Feeney said. "It was one of those wow moments for the jury."

Lonnie said the plaintiffs attempted to counter that testimony on cross-examination, but the jurors were able to see the physical exhibits that the expert was explaining.

Dykema also presented a metallurgical expert who explained the shaft's materials, how such parts are manufactured and how any component can fail when subjected to sufficient force.

"It was critically important for us to communicate that to the jury," Lonnie said. "Yes, there was a fracture of a CV shaft here, and even though it fractured during the crash, it doesn't mean that the component was defective."

Feeney said the verdict may not dramatically alter future axle litigation because such claims are rare in his experience, but he said the presentation methods used in the case will carry over into future product liability trials.

"In any products case, we take pride in our ability to develop a very simplistic way to communicate those facts," Feeney said. "Some of the things we did in this trial, we will duplicate in the next trial. There's no doubt about it because it worked."

The attorneys said expert selection was another key to the outcome, with Feeney saying Dykema generally relies on experts with whom the firm has prior experience or who come highly recommended by trusted colleagues. Lonnie added that credibility depended not only on technical knowledge but also on keeping each witness within the bounds of his or her true expertise.

"You want to make sure they maintain their credibility," Lonnie said. "You want the jury to understand they really do know what they're talking about based on their background, training and experience."

The lawyers also credited Leal's evidentiary rulings with helping keep the case focused, with Feeney describing the judge as hardworking and effective in managing a document-heavy trial, and Lonnie saying the court did a good job limiting extraneous material and keeping the jury's attention on the specific product and allegations at issue.

The emotional dimension of the case also shaped the defense presentation, as Feeney said the courtroom carried "tremendous empathy and compassion for the family," requiring the defense to proceed carefully and respectfully, especially when questioning family members and addressing issues such as the boy's seat restraint.

"You have to be very sensitive to that," Feeney said. "It's a challenge."

The attorneys rejected any suggestion that the quick verdict necessarily means the case lacked merit from the outset. Feeney said the American civil justice system properly allows plaintiffs to challenge corporations over products placed into the stream of commerce and noted that the case survived long enough to reach a jury.

"It's easy to look back at the end of a five-week trial with this outcome and say, 'Well, this case must not have had much merit,'" Feeney said. "But it didn't feel that way for the five weeks that we were in trial."

For Feeney and Lonnie, the verdict underscored that jurors could understand dense engineering evidence if lawyers present it clearly, visually and credibly.