Branham v. Ford Motor Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2010 · Torts

TortsProducts LiabilityDesign DefectStrict LiabilityNegligenceEvidencedesign defectrisk-utility

Facts

Branham was injured when a 1987 Ford Bronco II 4x2 rolled over after driver Cheryl Hale took her eyes off the road, the vehicle left the roadway, and she overcorrected. Branham sued Ford on two product theories: a seatbelt sleeve claim and a handling-and-stability design defect claim based on the Bronco II's alleged tendency to roll over, pursuing both in negligence and strict liability. Ford's internal evidence and Branham's proof indicated Ford engineers had favored alternative suspension systems such as the MacPherson strut, but Ford chose the Twin I-Beam suspension, which raised the vehicle's center of gravity and increased rollover propensity. The jury returned a general verdict against Ford and Hale and awarded substantial actual and punitive damages.

Issue

Whether Branham's seatbelt sleeve negligence claim could proceed after the strict liability seatbelt sleeve claim failed for lack of proof that the product was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous, and whether Branham's rollover design defect claim was properly submitted to the jury. The court also addressed what test governs design defect cases in South Carolina and whether post-distribution and similar-incident evidence was properly admitted.

Rule

In a products liability design defect action, the exclusive test is the risk-utility test, and the plaintiff must present evidence of a reasonable alternative design, including consideration of the costs, safety, and functionality of that alternative and how it would have prevented the product from being unreasonably dangerous. When one of two companion product claims is dismissed because a common element is missing, the other claim must also fail if it shares that element. In claims against a manufacturer, liability must be judged based on information known or reasonably attainable at the time of manufacture, so post-distribution evidence is generally inadmissible to prove liability.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbia, South Carolina, Lena Ortiz was injured when a folding ladder twisted during normal use. She sued Palmetto Forge Tools, alleging the ladder was defectively designed, and at trial she offered testimony only that ordinary users would not expect the ladder to twist that way.

Under the governing rule, which is the strongest argument for judgment as a matter of law for Palmetto Forge Tools on the design defect claim?

Explanation. The majority held that in product design defect cases, the consumer expectations test is excluded and the risk-utility test is the exclusive standard. That test requires evidence of a reasonable alternative design. Because Lena offered only consumer-expectation testimony and no alternative design evidence, the manufacturer has the strongest basis for judgment as a matter of law. (Derived from Branham v. Ford Motor Co. (n.d.).)