[UPDATE] 3-16 2:40pm -- TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) --

The Florida Senate has passed a bill that would make it more difficult for injured consumers to win product liability damages from auto makers and other manufacturers.

The bill (SB 142) cleared the chamber 28-to-12 on Wednesday and
now goes to the House where similar legislation (HB 201) is stalled
in committee.

The legislation is the focus of a lobbying duel between business
interests led by Ford Motor Co. and trial lawyers who represent
injured parties.

The bill would undo a 2001 Florida Supreme Court decision in a
suit against Ford that says evidence of the primary cause of a
crash, such as driver error, cannot be introduced in product
liability cases.

It passed on a largely party line vote with only one Republican
against and one Democrat in favor.

______________________________

THE CAPITAL, TALLAHASSEE, March 15, 2011 --

Florida Senate lawmakers will consider a bill today that redefines a 10-year legal precedent called the “crashworthiness doctrine,” allowing jurors to consider the fault of the driver when determining damages in a lawsuit against a vehicle manufacturer for a car defect.

This measure (SB 142) pits Florida’s trial lawyers against the business lobby and especially Ford Motor Co., which has aggressively lobbied for it in an attempt to reverse an unfavorable Florida Supreme Court decision.

The bill overturns the 2001 Florida Supreme Court decision D’Amario vs. Ford Motor Co. The court ruled that jurors cannot consider the cause of the accident when determining fault on enhanced injuries. These are injuries that are not the result of the initial accident, but rather come from a defect in the car, such as a faulty gas tank.

Tort reform has received renewed interest in recent years due in part to an increasingly conservative and overwhelmingly Republican Legislature. Both Senate President Mike Haridopolos, R-Merritt Island, and House Speaker Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park, have said efforts to save businesses from costly lawsuits are a high priority.

They have the backing of Gov. Rick Scott, who campaigned on a promise to reduce impediments to the success of Florida’s businesses. His agenda specifically included revamping Florida’s “crashworthiness doctrine.”

Haridopolos has made good on this promise, with SB 142 moved swiftly through the Senate and receiving a floor vote in the second week of the 60-day legislative session.

A similar effort in the House (HB 201) is stalled after an amendment was tacked on six weeks ago that moved the bill closer to current law, which is against the original intent of the bill.

Under the Senate bill, a jury would have to consider all of the contributors to an accident. It also specifically overrules the D’Amario and applies the bill retroactively. Under this measure, a juror considering fault on a defective seat belt could be told the cause of the accident was a drunk driver. Trial lawyers fear learning the cause of the accident will convince jurors not to hold a vehicle manufacturer responsible.

The Florida Justice Association, which represents trial lawyers, argues that SB 142 has dire consequences, letting vehicle manufacturers escape blame for automobile defects and removing an incentive to make safer vehicles.

Business groups say the bill, sponsored by Sen. Garrett Richter, R-Naples, gives jurors a more complete picture of how a driver’s actions may have contributed to their injuries.

“The issue at hand is the fact that this particular measure would allow the jury to hear the complete story,” said Edie Ousley, spokeswoman for the Florida Chamber of Commerce.

Under the House version, a jury is required to distinguish between injuries directly caused by the original accident and those injuries directly caused by an alleged defect in the car. If the jury can distinguish between the two, than whomever is responsible for the defective product may be held responsible for injuries caused by that defect.

This change has appeased trial lawyers because it’s much closer to current law.

Leslie Kroeger, an attorney at Leopold-Kuvin in West Palm Beach, said Florida’s crashworthiness doctrine should be left alone. Under the D’Amario decision, vehicle manufacturers like Ford are held accountable for manufacturing defects, Kroeger said. Typically crashworthiness cases involve severely injured people who are seeking multi-million settlements to help pay for a lifetime of medical care.

“If you make a bad product and hurt someone, you are the only one who should be responsible for that,” Kroeger said. One consequence of allowing a juror to blame the driver, she said, is that the injured person would have to rely on government programs like Medicare to pay medical bills because the average person cannot pay a $10 million settlement. A deep-pocketed company like Ford does have this ability, she said.

Attempts to amend the bill in the Senate to match the House version failed, though several amendments by Sen. David Simmons, R-Altamonte Springs, will be offered tomorrow to tweak the bill slightly.

His amendments will allow a judge to explain to a jury the difference between enhanced injuries and those caused by an accident. Simmons said his amendment supports the concept of the bill and just clarifies that juries will understand the difference between an enhanced injury and one caused by the accident.

The last time Florida lawmakers considered changes to civil litigation practices came in 2006. Business groups pushed through legislation to do away with the last vestiges of Florida’s joint and several liability laws, which allowed individual defendants to be financially responsible for paying claims regardless of their degree of fault.