The DiMasos had accused Ford of negligence, breach of warranties, and failure to warn its customers of the dangers posed by one of its sport utility vehicles, the Ford Explorer. They sought damages for past and future health care and mental and physical suffering, in addition to punitive damages for Ford's alleged "indifference to the consequences of its actions".

The DiMaso v. Ford case was watched with especial interest by lawyers and companies alike because it was the first such suit to take place since the landmark ruling earlier this year in the United States Supreme Court which sought to limit the amount of punitive damages payable by corporate defendants in cases such as this.

In a ruling delivered in April with regard to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Campbell, Supreme Court Justices voted by a 6-3 margin to overturn a punitive damages ruling against the insurer for $145 million.

Writing on behalf of the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that the size of the award was excessive, explaining that:

"Punitive damages awards serve the same purpose as criminal penalties. However, because civil defendants are not accorded the protections afforded criminal defendants, punitive damages pose an acute danger of arbitrary deprivation of property, which is heightened when the decision is presented with evidence having little bearing on the amount that should be awarded."

He continued:

"Single digit multipliers are more likely to comport with due process, while still achieving the state's goals of deterrence and retribution, than awards with ratios in the range of 500 to 1 or, in this case, of 145 to 1."

With the State Farm ruling in mind, Ford's lawyers filed a motion seeking to prevent lawyers for the DiMasos from introducing evidence of the firm's net worth, or of sales of the Ford Explorer outside of the state of Georgia, in order to ensure that any punitive damages awarded do not represent an "arbitrary deprivation of property", as quoted in the earlier ruling.

However, the pre-trial manouevering of the legal teams on both sides of DiMaso v. Ford case turned out to have been unnecessary, as the jury's finding supported the defense's claim that Mr DiMaso had taken unnecessary risks by failing to wear his seatbelt, and had contributed to the accident which led to the severing of his spine by veering the SUV which he was driving from left to right after hitting the median, rather than braking or pulling the car off the road.