In a quirk of legal fate, Crystal Bear won a $6 million jury award against her sister in an SUV rollover case. Now she has accepted $200,000 from her sister's insurers as payment in full to heal their wounded relationship.

The October 1999 rollover of a 1984 Ford Bronco II which Marla Bear Motteshead was driving near her Rice, Wash., home left Crystal, who was 13 at the time, a quadriplegic and with a permanent brain injury. Crystal sued Ford Motor (NYSE: F), alleging defective design of the Bronco, but under Washington state law had to name her sister as a co-defendant.

In March, a jury in Spokane found Marla 100 percent at fault for losing control of the SUV -– even though Ford’s lead attorney said in his closing argument that if jurors found any liability, they should blame his client –- and awarded Crystal $5.9 million in economic damages and $115,200 for pain and suffering.

Marla had only $200,000 in auto insurance coverage but after the insurers paid the policy limit, Crystal agreed last month to have that amount satisfy the judgment. She also dropped her appeal of the verdict, which she had called “retarded.”

Crystal attorney Richard C. Eymann (Eymann Allison Hunter Jones, Spokane) explained that the guardian ad litem appointed by the court to represent her interests did not “want the sibling relationship with Marla to completely disintegrate over this tragedy.”

If Crystal had not cancelled the debt, he said, the judgment would have remained on Marla's credit report, jeopardizing her ability to obtain loans and provide for her two children. “It made sense [for their relationship] to satisfy the judgment with $200,000,” he told On Point.

In a May 28 order denying a new trial, U.S. District Judge Edward F. Shea referred to the “subtle undercurrents” of the case and the attorneys' efforts to minimize the damage to the sisters' relationship.

“The jury was acutely aware of the delicate situation and responded with a verdict that adequately compensated Plaintiff for her economic damages considering Defendant Motteshard’s admitted negligence, but modestly compensated Plaintiff with a non-economic damage award that would not burden Defendant Motteshard with overwhelming psychological guilt for Plaintiff’s plight,” he said.

“In sum," he concluded, "the jury did precisely what counsel asked of them concerning preserving the sisters’ already fragile bond.”

Crystal's appeal focused mostly on juror misconduct issues. Eymann said she dropped it in return for Ford agreeing not to seek its legal costs from her.

“The real tragedy was Ford's escape from any liability and especially the defective rear seat belt system in the Bronco ll,” he said. “No matter whether the rollover was Marla's sole fault or Ford's, or a combination of their fault, if Crystal's seat belt had not had its multiple defects, which were well known for years to Ford, Crystal's injuries would never have been catastrophic.”

By Matthew Heller
12/2/08