Dreisonstok v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1974 · Torts

Tortsproducts liabilitynegligent designcrashworthinesscrashworthinessenhanced injuriessecond collisionnegligent design

Facts

Plaintiff was riding in the front seat of a Volkswagen microbus when the driver, while attempting to downshift on a downhill grade, looked away from the road and steered into a driveway, then chose to hit a telephone pole rather than an oncoming vehicle. The bus struck the pole on its right front, and plaintiff's leg was trapped between the seat back and dashboard, causing severe injuries. Plaintiffs alleged negligent design based on inadequate crashworthiness, specifically insufficient energy-absorbing material or crush space in the front of the vehicle. Their proof compared the microbus to a standard American passenger car, especially a 1966 Ford, rather than to vehicles of like type.

Issue

Whether, under Virginia law as assumed to follow the Larsen approach, Volkswagen negligently designed its microbus by failing to provide sufficient front-end crush space to protect front-seat occupants from enhanced injuries in a collision. More specifically, whether crashworthiness may be judged by comparing a microbus to a standard front-engine passenger car and by requiring survival of a 40-mile-per-hour head-on collision without intrusion into the passenger compartment.

Rule

Foreseeability of automobile collisions alone does not create a duty to design a crash-proof car. Even assuming a manufacturer has a duty to use ordinary care to avoid subjecting users to an unreasonable risk of injury in a collision, unreasonable risk must be determined by balancing likelihood and gravity of harm against the utility of the design, obviousness of the danger, intended use and special purpose of the vehicle, practicability and cost of alternative designs, comparison with vehicles of like type, and the circumstances of the accident itself.

🔒

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 Columbus, Ohio, Nina Patel was injured when a compact city runabout made by Lakeview Motors struck a concrete divider after another driver cut across traffic. Nina sues Lakeview, arguing only that crashes are inevitable in modern driving and therefore the manufacturer had a duty to design the car so occupants would not suffer compartment intrusion in foreseeable collisions.

Under the governing rule, which is the strongest response to Nina's argument?

Explanation. The majority treated foreseeability of collision as only one factor, not the source of automatic duty or liability. Even assuming a crashworthiness duty exists, liability turns on whether the design subjected users to an unreasonable risk of injury under ordinary negligence balancing, including utility, practicability, cost, intended use, vehicle type, and the circumstances of the accident. The manufacturer is not required to build a crash-proof vehicle.