$2.5 Billion Verdict Against Ford in Fatal Truck Roof Collapse Case

A Georgia federal jury has ordered Ford Motor Co. to pay $2.5 billion in punitive damages following a wrongful death lawsuit involving a fatal rollover crash. The case revolved around the deaths of Debra and Herman Mills, who were killed when the roof of their Ford F-250 Super Duty pickup caved in during a rollover accident in 2022. The couple’s three sons—James "Dusty" E. Brogdon Jr., Ronald "Rusty" B. Brogdon, and Jason Edwin Mills—filed the lawsuit, arguing that Ford was aware of the defective roof design but failed to take action.

The jury found Ford 85% responsible for the crash, with Debra Mills assigned 15% of the fault. As a result, U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land reduced Ford’s liability for compensatory damages accordingly. The sons were awarded over $30.5 million in compensatory damages, including funeral expenses and attorney fees.

The Trial

The trial, which lasted nine days, was split into two phases. In the first phase, jurors found Ford liable for the deaths and determined that compensatory damages were warranted. The second phase focused on punitive damages, where the jury determined that Ford’s conduct justified further financial penalties.

The plaintiffs’ legal team, led by James E. Butler Jr. of Butler Prather LLP, argued that Ford had been aware for over two decades that its truck roofs were dangerously weak. “Ford has known for 26 years that people were getting killed and hurt by Ford's weak roofs, but the company has constantly refused to admit the danger or warn of the risk,” Butler stated.

Ford countered that the verdict was excessive and not supported by the evidence. "The verdict is impermissibly extreme," Ford said in a statement, adding that it planned to appeal. The automaker pointed to prior jury decisions in three separate cases where Ford Super Duty trucks were found not to be defective.

The Allegations Against Ford

The lawsuit alleged that Ford had been aware of the risks posed by its Super Duty truck roofs since at least 1999. The plaintiffs presented evidence that an internal Ford engineering team had developed a stronger roof design in 2006, but the company opted not to implement it. Instead, Ford lobbied the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to avoid imposing stricter roof strength standards on heavy-duty trucks.

Ford only started reinforcing the roofs of its Super Duty trucks in 2017, according to the plaintiffs. They further argued that Ford’s claim that roof strength is irrelevant in rollovers—because passengers allegedly “dive” into the roof before impact—was based on flawed research that was not supported by Ford’s own engineers, Congress, or the NHTSA.

What’s Next?

Ford intends to appeal both the compensatory and punitive damages awards, arguing that the jury’s decision was disproportionate. However, this verdict follows a similar case in Georgia where Ford was ordered to pay $1.7 billion in punitive damages for another fatal roof collapse incident. That case, Hill v. Ford Motor Co., is currently on appeal.

If Ford’s appeal is unsuccessful, this case could set a significant precedent for future lawsuits related to vehicle safety defects. The verdict also highlights the potential financial risks automakers face when failing to address known product hazards.

Law Firms Involved

The Mills family was represented by Butler Prather LLP, Page Scrantom Sprouse Tucker & Ford PC, and Bondurant Mixson & Elmore LLP. Ford was defended by Watson Spence LLP, Troutman Pepper Locke LLP, Thompson Hine LLP, Huie Fernambucq & Stewart LLP, and Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons LLP.

The case is James Brogdon et al. v. Ford Motor Co., case number 4:23-cv-00088, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.