Ford Escapes Liability in Kentucky Seatbelt Defect Lawsuit

A Kentucky federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Ford Motor Co. alleging a defective seatbelt design in its F-150 pickup trucks exacerbated injuries sustained in a fatal 2021 collision. The decision concludes that the plaintiff failed to present a viable alternative design under Kentucky’s crashworthiness doctrine — a critical element in design defect litigation.

The suit arose from a December 7, 2021, accident on the Wendell H. Ford Western Kentucky Parkway. Scott Wade, a front-seat passenger in a Ford F-150, was injured when the truck was struck by a Dodge Durango that crossed the median and collided with a Mack truck. The crash killed one passenger in the Durango and injured several occupants across the vehicles involved.

Wade alleged that during the crash, the F-150’s seatbelt system failed, allowing him to slide under the lap belt. He claimed that the seat bottom deformed, introducing slack that caused the restraint to tear, resulting in fractures, internal injuries, and severe bruising.

The Crashworthiness Doctrine and Design Requirements

In Kentucky, as in many jurisdictions, the crashworthiness doctrine governs cases alleging enhanced injuries from vehicle design defects. The doctrine requires plaintiffs to demonstrate not only that a defect existed but also that a feasible alternative design could have reduced or prevented the injuries.

U.S. District Chief Judge Greg N. Stivers emphasized that without a demonstrated alternative design, a claim under the crashworthiness theory cannot proceed. The judge explained that merely citing other vehicle models or general differences in restraint systems does not meet the threshold of establishing a technically and economically feasible design alternative.

“Under the crashworthiness doctrine, an expert does not present an alternative vehicle design by simply naming other vehicles; proposals must be specific and include an explanation of why they would have been feasible to implement in the vehicle at issue,” Judge Stivers wrote.

Expert Testimony and the Court’s Findings

Wade’s primary expert, mechanical engineer Larry Sicher, compared the F-150’s seatbelt load limiter to that of a 2009 Toyota Corolla. Sicher noted that the Corolla’s limiter introduced slack at approximately 1,000 pounds of load, while the F-150’s limiter activated at around 350 pounds. However, Sicher expressly disclaimed offering the Corolla’s system as an alternative design for the F-150.

The court held that this disclaimer was fatal to the plaintiff’s claim. While Sicher identified potential differences between systems, he did not provide evidence that the Corolla’s restraint design could be feasibly adapted to the F-150 platform. Judge Stivers concluded that Sicher’s report “did not show that the designs of other vehicles’ restraint systems differed in a way that was both significant and implementable.”

A second expert, Andrew Rentschler, testified that a feasible alternative design existed but failed to specify what that design entailed. The court determined that such conclusory testimony did not satisfy the burden of proof required under Kentucky law.

Ford’s Defense and Summary Judgment

Ford moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff’s expert testimony failed to establish a critical element of the design defect claim. The automaker also presented expert evidence suggesting that the F-150’s restraint system met applicable safety standards and was consistent with industry norms.

Although the plaintiff cited statements from Ford’s expert, Roger Burnett, referring to the Corolla’s system as a “safer alternative design,” Judge Stivers ruled that this characterization did not cure the deficiencies in the plaintiff’s evidence. The opinion clarified that Burnett’s remarks did not constitute an endorsement of the Corolla system as a feasible design substitute for the F-150.

With no admissible evidence of a viable alternative, the court granted Ford’s motion for summary judgment, ending the case at the pretrial stage.

Broader Implications for Automotive Product Liability

The ruling reinforces the evidentiary burden faced by plaintiffs in automotive defect litigation, particularly in cases involving crashworthiness claims. Courts continue to require clear, technically grounded demonstrations of feasible alternative designs rather than theoretical or comparative references.

This decision may serve as a reminder for litigants that expert testimony must extend beyond identifying potential design differences — it must articulate how those differences could be implemented without compromising vehicle performance, cost, or regulatory compliance. In the context of modern automotive safety litigation, courts are increasingly unwilling to accept speculative engineering opinions unsupported by demonstrable feasibility.

Case Details

Case Name: Wade et al. v. Ford Motor Co.
Court Name: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
Case Number: 4:23-cv-00008
Defense Attorney(s): Turner Keal & Button PLLC, Watson Spence LLP