D'Amario v. Ford Motor Co.

Supreme Court of Florida · 2001 · Torts

Tortsproducts liabilitycrashworthinesscomparative faultcrashworthinessenhanced injurysecondary collisioncomparative fault

Facts

Both consolidated cases were crashworthiness suits alleging that a vehicle defect caused enhanced injuries after an initial collision. In D'Amario, a passenger was severely burned after a car struck a tree and later burst into flames; the plaintiffs sought damages only for injuries allegedly caused by a defective relay switch, not for injuries from the initial crash, while Ford introduced evidence that the driver was intoxicated and speeding. In Nash, the estate alleged that a defective seatbelt in a Chevrolet Corsica enhanced fatal head injuries after another vehicle crossed the center line and collided with Nash's car, and evidence of the other driver's intoxication was admitted. In both cases, the jury returned defense verdicts after hearing evidence emphasizing the intoxicated drivers' role in causing the initial accidents.

Issue

In a crashworthiness or enhanced injury case, may the fault of the driver or other person who caused the initial collision be compared or apportioned with the fault of the automobile manufacturer alleged to have caused the enhanced injuries through a defect? Relatedly, does the comparative fault statute's intentional tort exception apply because the initial driver was intoxicated?

Rule

In crashworthiness cases, principles of comparative fault concerning the causes of the first collision do not generally apply. Because the manufacturer may not ordinarily be held liable for injuries caused by the initial collision, the manufacturer's fault for a defective product causing enhanced injuries may not be compared or apportioned with the fault of the driver who caused the initial accident; however, comparative fault may be considered where the plaintiff's negligence contributed to the enhanced injuries themselves. Drunk driving is not an independent intentional tort for purposes of the intentional tort exception to section 768.81.

🔒

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 Tampa, Leah Moreno was riding in a sedan driven by Owen Pike when Owen ran a stop sign and struck a retaining wall. Leah sues Gulf Crest Motors, alleging a defective seatback collapsed during the impact and caused a spinal injury far worse than the injury she would have suffered from the collision alone; she seeks damages only for the added spinal harm.

If Gulf Crest Motors asks the court to place Owen on the verdict form so the jury can apportion fault for causing the crash, how should the court rule?

Explanation. In a crashworthiness or enhanced-injury case, the manufacturer is liable only, if at all, for the injuries over and above those caused by the first collision. Because the cause of the underlying crash is a distinct causal inquiry, the manufacturer’s fault for the alleged defect ordinarily may not be compared or apportioned with the fault of the driver who caused the initial accident. The jury should focus on whether a defect existed and whether it proximately caused enhanced injuries, not on retrying the cause of the first crash. (Derived from D'Amario v. Ford Motor Co. (n.d.).)