Daly v. General Motors Corporation

Supreme Court of California · 1978 · Torts

575 P.2d 1162 (1978)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsStrict products liabilityComparative faultCrashworthinessEvidenceassumption of riskproduct misuseseat belts

Facts

Kirk Daly was driving an Opel on the Harbor Freeway when the car struck a metal divider fence, spun, the driver's door opened, and Daly was ejected and killed. Plaintiffs alleged on a strict products liability theory that the Opel's door latch was defectively designed and that the defect caused the door to open during the crash, enhancing Daly's injuries in a second-collision case. Defendants introduced evidence that Daly did not use the seat belt-shoulder harness or door lock, that the owner's manual warned of their use, and that Daly was intoxicated, arguing those facts bore on whether he used the vehicle's safety equipment. The jury returned a verdict for defendants.

Issue

Do comparative fault principles apply to actions founded on strict products liability? Additionally, in this strict liability design-defect case, was it error to admit evidence of the decedent's intoxication and failure to use available safety devices, and may the alleged defect be evaluated by considering the product as a whole rather than the isolated component alone?

Rule

California's system of pure comparative fault extends to strict products liability actions, so a plaintiff's recovery is reduced, but not barred, in proportion to the plaintiff's own fault contributing to the injury. In such cases, assumption of risk, to the extent it is a form of contributory negligence, is abolished as a separate complete defense. In design-defect cases, the alleged defect is assessed with respect to the product as an integrated whole, including safety features, rather than by isolating a single component.

🔒

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 Phoenix, Elena Ruiz sued Desert Crest Motors, the manufacturer of a sport utility vehicle, alleging that a defect in the roof structure enhanced her injuries when the vehicle rolled after another driver forced her off the road. The evidence showed Elena was driving at an unreasonably high speed for the weather and that her speed contributed to the severity of her injuries, but the jury also found the roof defect was a substantial cause of the enhanced harm.

How should Elena's own conduct affect her recovery in the strict products liability action?

Explanation. The majority held that comparative fault applies to strict products liability actions. A plaintiff's damages are diminished only to the extent the plaintiff's own lack of reasonable care contributed to the injury; recovery is not completely barred on that basis alone.