Fatal highway accident blamed on faulty manufacture of motor home. Defense verdict. Sonoma County.

Facts and Background

• Facts and Background:

  Triple wrongful death action. Plaintiffs include surviving four minor children and one adult child. Two adults and an infant child were killed in an automobile accident allegedly due to power fluid leaking onto the freeway from defendant William's motor home.

  Plaintiffs claimed that on August 23, 2012, the decedent's vehicle ran over power steering fluid and lost control, crossing over the center median of Highway 101, into an oncoming SUV traveling the opposite direction.

• Plaintiff's Contentions:

  That the fluid on the roadway had come from defendants' motor home was a contested issue in this case; however, there were several pieces of evidence pointing to the power fluid leaking onto the highway from the motor home.  First, before the accident occurred, there was a 911 call from a motorist driving in the same direction as the motor home, who is recorded stating that she and her husband just drove through an oil slick on the roadway, and that it appeared to have come from a motor home stopped on the side of the road.  Second, Mr. Williams’ motor home was stopped south, or after the accident scene, on the side of the roadway.  The power steering hose on his motor home had a hole in it, and plaintiffs claim it leaked several gallons of power steering fluid.  Third, plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert testified that the loss of control was consistent with the decedent’s vehicle running over oil in a turn, and losing control and crossing over the center median.  Fourth, there was evidence of an unidentified witness stopping behind the motor home on the side of the road advising the owner of the motor home that he was spraying oil onto the roadway.

  Plaintiffs claimed that the power steering hose was mounted under the chassis of the motor home, leaving it exposed to scraping the ground when the vehicle bottomed out, resulting in the worn hose bursting under pressure and releasing the power steering fluid. Plaintiffs claimed that the hose was mounted under the chassis due to a manufacturing or design defect. Plaintiffs' evidence that the hose was originally routed under the chassis was the position of the hose at the time of the accident, which was mounted under the chassis and had leaked.

  That the subject motor home was designed and manufactured by a defunct company named Country Coach, LLC., and was the predecessor company to Country Coach Corporation, that purchased some of the assets of the predecessor company in a bankruptcy sale.

  Plaintiffs sued Mega RV, the retail seller, and Country Coach Corporation, who purchased assets from the bankrupt manufacturer of the motor home. Both defendants were sued under a theory of strict products liability. Plaintiffs also alleged successor liability against Country Coach.

• Defendant's Contentions:

  Defendants originally contested that oil leaking from the motor home was what caused decedent’s vehicle to lose control. 

  At trial, defendants contended that the hose was not originally mounted under the chassis; rather was originally mounted above the chassis, and was subsequently changed by the owner of the motor home that was also a defendant in this action, but settled prior to trial.

  The manufacturer of the motor home, Country Coach LLC, which went bankrupt in 2009, did not participate in the case or assist in any manner. Accordingly, the retail seller, Mega RV Corp., and subsequent purchaser of assets from the manufacturer, Country Coach Corporation, were tasked with defending a product that it neither manufactured nor designed, with no assistance from the manufacturer.

  The defense located former employees of the manufacturer and followed up on any leads that would help piece together the maintenance and repair history of the subject motor home. It was through this work that defendants' counsel were able to locate a supervisor for the manufacturer who had knowledge of the manufacturing process. Defendants were able to establish that if the hose was improperly mounted below the chassis as plaintiffs claimed, the hose would have blocked the application of undercoating onto the underside of the chassis in that location, leaving behind evidence of a shadow on the chassis where the hose would have blocked the application of undercoating.