Question: A six-day-old 1991 Ford Aerostar driven by Kathleen Jarvis suddenly accelerated, resulting in an accident in which Jarvis sustained severe injuries. Jarvis contended that the Aerostar "took off " even though she had not depressed the accelerator and that she was unable to stop the van by pumping the brakes. She sued Ford Motor Company in a federal district court, claiming that Ford's negligence in designing the Aerostar's cruise control system led to the sudden acceleration and her accident. The injury sustained by Jarvis in the accident prevented her from returning to her previous employment. Jarvis testified at trial that she started the Aerostar in the driveway of her home with her right foot "lightly on thebrake." After she turned on the ignition, the engine suddenly revved and the vehicle "took off." As the van accelerated, Jarvis pumped the brake with both feet. The van would not stop. She steered to avoid people walking in the road and then heard saplings brushing against the side of the van before she blacked out. George Pope, an accident reconstruction specialist who testified for Jarvis, stated that the van traveled approximately 330 feet and did some braking that slowed it to 15 to 20 miles per hour before it entered a ditch and turned over. Pope testified that the Aerostar had vacuum power brakes that draw their vacuum from the engine, but that the engine does not create the necessary vacuum when accelerating full throttle.

Even though a check valve traps a reservoir of vacuum for use when the engine vacuum is low, this reserve can be depleted after one-and-a-half hard brake applications. Therefore, according to Pope, if Jarvis pumped the brakes in an effort to stop the Aerostar after it began accelerating at full throttle, she would have lost approximately 1,000 pounds of additional force that the booster normally could have supplied to the brakes. Pope concluded that "under those circumstances, it will feel to a person like they've lost their brakes, [because] they're pushing and nothing is happening." In support of her claim that the Aerostar had suddenly accelerated even though she did not press the accelerator, Jarvis presented testimony from five Aerostar owners who recounted having had similar problems with their 1989 or 1990 Aerostars. In addition, the jury was presented with evidence that Ford had received reports of incidents of sudden acceleration in a total of 560 Aerostars. Samuel J. Sero, an electrical engineer, also testified as an expert for Jarvis. He offered a theory noting possible electrical malfunctions and mechanical reasons that could have caused the sudden acceleration to occur. This theory focused on the design and workings of Aerostar's cruise control system. Sero also testified concerning a possible alternative design of the Aerostar's cruise control system-a design that he believed would have prevented the sudden acceleration problem if the design had been implemented by Ford. In its defense, Ford claimed principally that the acceleration was the result of a driver error by Jarvis. Ford contended that Jarvis must have been unaware that the parking brake had been set and must have mistaken the accelerator pedal for the brake pedal. Ford also presented expert testimony that the Aerostar would not have malfunctioned in the manner suggested by Jarvis's expert.

In addition, Ford maintained that the existence of the Aerostar's dump valve, a spring-loaded plunger designed to open when the brake pedal is depressed, would have effectively stopped the Aerostar from accelerating when Jarvis applied the brakes, even if the cruise control had malfunctioned as Sero suggested. Ford's expert testified that he tested the dump valve after the accident and found that it had no leaks. The jury concluded that Ford negligently designed the Aerostar's cruise control system, that this was a substantial factor in causing the accident, and that Jarvis's negligence was also a substantial factor in causing the accident. It apportioned 65 percent of the fault to Ford and 35 percent to Jarvis, presumably because of evidence that the Aerostar owner's manual directs drivers to apply the brakes firmly with one stoke and not in a pumping action. The jury awarded Jarvis more than $1 million in damages for past and future medical insurance premiums, lost earnings, and pain and suffering. Asserting that the only logical conclusion to be drawn from the evidence was that Jarvis never applied the brake pedal and mistakenly applied the accelerator instead, Ford moved for judgment as a matter of law (judgment notwithstanding the verdict). The trial judge granted Ford's motion, set aside the verdict, and entered judgment in Ford's favor. Jarvis appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Did the trial court rule correctly in setting aside the jury's verdict and entering judgment in Ford's favor?