Jurors elected to sleep on the closing arguments in the case, which were presented Thursday afternoon.
It was not surprising jurors requested a break before deliberating. The attorneys representing Jenny Singley and seat belt manufacturer TRW engaged in a dizzying final flurry of facts and allegations to end what has been a complex trial where experts seemed to rarely agree on anything.
The one thing everybody in the courtroom has agreed on is that Will Rogerson IV was driving too fast on March 17, 2005, and caused the accident that led to the death of Mrs. Singley.
Rogerson and his attorney, Scott A. Seelhoff, have remained largely silent during the trial, willing to let the other two sides in the case fight it out.
But Rogerson has a lot riding on the outcome of the case. He has already pleaded guilty to a manslaughter charge in criminal court. His sentencing on the case was delayed for the civil trial.
If the jury finds that Mrs. Singley’s seat belt in her Saturn L300 was defective, it is conceivable Rogerson could receive only a probated sentence.
“Unfortunately Rogerson’s actions had tragic consequences,” said Jack Little, TRW attorney. “He will have to live with that for the rest of his life. But that doesn’t mean TRW’s seat belt failed.”
TRW lawyers staged a final withering attack on experts called in on behalf of the Singleys. Bill Muzzy, who testified that a design flaw in Mrs. Singley’s seat belt caused it to malfunction, was the primary target.
“Bill Muzzy has absolutely no idea what he is talking about,” Little said. “His story has changed so many times and he has flip- flopped so many times that it spins the mind.”
Little said that there was no evidence that the primary or secondary locking mechanisms in Mrs. Singley’s seat belt failed.
“It’s wrong that they blame TRW. It’s wrong that they bring unqualified experts in here. It’s wrong that they are reaching into TRW pockets,” said David Tippetts, TRW attorney. “An odor permeates the courtroom and what that is is the foul stench of intellectual dishonesty. That is what they brought you.”
Singley’s attorney John Escover told jurors that when they begin deliberating the case they should lay out the belts and look at them side by side. Muzzy’s testified that the marks on the belts should be similar if they both locked properly during the crash. He shared photo evidence that he said proved Mrs. Singley’s belt either didn’t lock or didn’t lock properly.
Escover said it was not good enough that the TRW designed belt saved the life of Mrs. Singley’s 14-year-old son.
“That’s what the Singley’s paid $25,000 for, a seat belt that works half the time?” he said. “We demand better than that.”
Escover told jurors to look at the overall case and attempted to discredit two seat belt experts that TRW had testify in the case. Both experts were former TRW employees who left the company and went into private business together.
“Now they own a business that TRW goes to and says that we need an independent expert opinion,” Escover said.
After days and days of hearing facts and opinions that were sometimes difficult to comprehend, the last words jurors heard were meant to reach right to their hearts.
“One person hasn’t been able to talk here. Since March 17, 2005, Mrs. Singley hasn’t been able to talk to anybody,” Escover said. “Listen to her when you go back there, but while you’re back there look at her seat belt. Tell TRW that we expect more than 50 percent.”
