 |
studentJD |
|
|
Students Helping Students |
Currently Briefing & Updating |
© 2010 No content replication for monetary use of any kind is allowed without express written permission
|
Daly v. General Motors Corporation, 575 P.2d 1162 |
Supreme Court of California |
1978 |
|
Chapter |
16 |
Title |
Product Liability |
|
Page |
689 |
Topic |
The Issue Of the Plaintiffs Conduct |
|
Quick Notes |
Pl was going a little too fast in his convertible. Upon collision the drivers door was thrown wide open, because an alleged improperly designed door latch. Comparative negligence or fault can apply to actions found on strict product liability. |
||
|
Book Name |
Torts Cases, Problems, And Exercises. Weaver, Third Edition. ISBN: 978-1-4224-7220-0. |
||
|
Issue |
o Whether the principles of comparative negligence apply to actions found on strict product liability? Yes. |
|
Procedure |
|
|
Trial |
o Jury rendered verdict in favor of ALL defendants. |
|
Supreme |
o Reversed |
|
Facts |
Reason |
Rules |
|
o Pl - Daly (Window and children) o Df - GM What happened? o Kirk Daly had an accident in his Opel convertible going between 50 70 mph where he hit and damaged a metal divider fence. o Daly was forcibly ejected from the car where he sustained severe head injuries. o The complaint is the drivers door was thrown open. o It is undisputed that if deceased remained in the car would probably just sustain minor injuries. Claim o Sued General Motors Corporation, Click for Enhanced Coverage Boulevard Buick, Underwriter's Auto Leasing, and Alco Leasing Company, the successive links in the Opel's manufacturing and distribution chain. o The sole theory of plaintiffs' complaint was strict liability for damages allegedly caused by a defective product, namely, an improperly designed door latch claimed to have been activated by the impact. o It was further asserted that, but for the faulty latch, decedent would have been restrained in the vehicle and, although perhaps injured, would not have been killed. o Thus, the case involves a so-called "second collision" in which the "defect" did not contribute to the original impact, but only to the "enhancement" of injury. |
Df - Evidence 1. The car had a door lock and seat belt. 2. The door was not locked and the seat belt was not used. 3. The 1970 Opel owner's manual contained warnings that seat belts should be worn and doors locked when the car was in motion for "accident security"; and 4. Daly was intoxicated at the time of collision, which evidence the jury was advised was admitted for the limited purpose of determining whether decedent had used the vehicle's safety equipment.
Strict Liability and Comparative Fault o Pl Arg intoxication-nonuse evidence was improperly admitted. o Df Arg deceased own conduct contributed to his own death.
Pl Arg Against the recognition of comparative negligence o Strict liability is not founded on negligence or fault is inhospitable to comparative negligence. o The syllogism runs, contributory negligence was only a defense to negligence, comparative negligence only affects contributory negligence, therefore comparative negligence cannot be a defense to strict liability.
Courts Response We think they can be blended or accommodated.
Strict Liability Purpose o We imposed strict liability against the manufacturer and in favor of the user or consumer in order to relieve injured consumers "from problems of proof inherent in pursuing negligence . . . and warranty . . . remedies, . . ." o We sought to place the burden of loss on manufacturers rather than ". . . injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves . . . ."
Reasoning o Pl - will continue to be relieved of proving that the manufacturer or distributor was negligent in the production and design. o Df - liability for injuries caused by a defective product remains strict. o Pl - recovery will be reduced only to the extent that his own lack of reasonable care contributed to his injury. o This promotes the equitable allocate of loss among all parties legally responsible in proportion to their fault.
Second Objection Manufacturers incentive to produce safe products will be reduced. o The manufacturer cannot avoid its continuing liability for a defective product even when the plaintiff's own conduct has contributed to his injury. o A manufacturer cannot assume that the user of a defective product upon whom an injury is visited will be blameworthy
Third Objection Merger of strict liability with comparative fault o Jurors cannot assess, measure, or compare plaintiff's negligence with defendant's strict liability o Court: Not persuaded
o Assumption of risk is not a form of contributory negligence.
Holding We conclude that a system of comparative fault should be and it is hereby extended to actions founded on strict products liability. |
|
|
Class Notes && Rules |
|
Pl was going a little too fast in his convertible. Upon collision the drivers door was thrown wide open, because an alleged improperly designed door latch. Comparative negligence or fault can apply to actions found on strict product liability
What contributory negligence? If the Pl is CN, then the Df is not liability. Complete bar to liability. The Pl does not exercise sufficient car from an unreasonable risk of harm. o Is not the majority rule. o Most jurisdictions use comparative negligence
Comparative negligence you apportion the fault between the Pl and Df.
Comparative Negligence (Majority) Comparative negligence principles APPLY to strict liability cases o We conclude that a system of comparative fault should be and it is hereby extended to actions founded on strict products liability. o A system of comparative fault should be and it is hereby extended to actions founded on strict products liability. In such cases the separate defense of "assumption of risk," to the extent that it is a form of contributory negligence, is abolished
3 types of comparative negligence. o Pure If Pl - is 90% negligent, he still recovers 10%. o Modified 1 50/50 tie goes to the Pl. o Modified 2 50/50 tie goes to the Df.
Contributory Negligence (MINORITY RULE) o If P is contributory negligent under the CL the D is not liable o Assumption of the risk is a COMPLETE BAR TO LIABILITY, where the Pl does not exercise sufficient care to protect himself from unreasonable risk of harm.
|