Daly v. General Motors

Supreme Court of California · 1978 · Torts

TortsStrict Products LiabilityComparative FaultCrashworthinessstrict products liabilitycomparative negligencecomparative faultassumption of risk

Facts

Kirk Daly was driving his Opel on the Harbor Freeway when the car struck a metal divider fence, spun, the driver's door opened, and he was ejected and fatally injured. Plaintiffs alleged that an improperly designed door latch was defectively activated by the impact and that, absent the defect, Daly would have remained in the vehicle and suffered only minor injuries. Defendants presented expert testimony disputing that alternative latch designs would have prevented the door from opening under the force of the crash. Over plaintiffs' objection, defendants also introduced evidence that Daly was intoxicated and failed to use the car's seat belt-shoulder harness and door lock, either of which defendants claimed would have prevented his ejection.

Issue

Whether comparative fault principles announced in Li v. Yellow Cab apply to strict products liability actions. Also, whether evidence of compensating safety devices is admissible to offset claimed design deficiencies, and whether evidence of the decedent's intoxication and failure to use available safety devices was properly admitted under the circumstances.

Rule

Comparative fault principles apply in strict products liability actions. A plaintiff's own lack of reasonable care that contributes to the injury reduces recovery in proportion to that fault rather than barring recovery entirely, while defendant's liability for injuries caused by a defective product remains strict. Evidence of compensating safety design characteristics may be admissible, but plaintiff-conduct evidence must be properly limited and may be prejudicially erroneous under particular facts.

🔒

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 San Diego, Nora Kim sued Desert Crest Motors and its distributor after her sport utility vehicle's allegedly defective seatback collapsed in a rear-end collision, worsening her spinal injuries. The evidence showed the seatback was defectively designed, but also showed Nora was driving while sending text messages and that her inattention contributed to the severity of the crash sequence.

If the jury finds both that the product defect enhanced Nora's injuries and that Nora's own lack of reasonable care contributed to those injuries, what is the most appropriate result?

Explanation. The majority held that comparative fault principles apply in strict products liability actions. A plaintiff's own lack of reasonable care that contributes to the injury does not defeat the claim altogether; it reduces recovery in proportion to that contribution. At the same time, the defendant's liability for injuries caused by a defective product remains strict.