Leichtamer v. American Motors

Supreme Court of Ohio · Torts

TortsProducts liabilityDesign defectStrict liabilityCrashworthinessPunitive damagesFailure to warnEvidence

Facts

Appellees sought to hold appellants liable for injuries enhanced by an alleged design defect in the vehicle they occupied, rather than for causing the accident itself. Appellants produced and advertised a Jeep CJ-7 as capable of off-the-road use, and the vehicle included a roll bar represented as providing added protection. The record showed appellants took no steps to ascertain the safety of the roll bar device on the 1976 Jeep CJ-7 through proving-ground, vibration or shock, or crash tests on that vehicle. Appellees presented evidence that the protection provided in rollovers or pitch-overs was wholly inadequate and that the design defect enhanced their injuries.

Issue

Whether a plaintiff may proceed on a strict-liability-in-tort theory for enhanced injuries caused by an allegedly defective vehicle design in a second-collision case, and if so, what makes a design unreasonably dangerous. The case also presented whether warnings may be considered within a strict-liability charge, whether advertising is admissible to show consumer expectations and intended use, and whether punitive damages were supportable on this record.

Rule

A cause of action for damages for injuries enhanced by a design defect will lie in strict liability in tort. To recover, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the enhancement of the injuries was proximately caused by a defective product unreasonably dangerous to the plaintiff. A product is unreasonably dangerous if it is dangerous to an extent beyond the expectations of an ordinary consumer when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner.

🔒

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 Flagstaff, Arizona, Nora Kim was riding in a utility vehicle made by Red Mesa Motors when another driver ran a stop sign and struck the vehicle. Nora claims the vehicle's seatback support was designed so weakly that it collapsed during the impact and caused a far more severe spinal injury than the crash itself would have caused.

If Nora sues Red Mesa Motors, which theory is most consistent with the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority held that strict liability in tort applies to design-defect claims involving enhanced injuries in a second-collision setting. The plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the enhancement of injuries was proximately caused by a defective product that was unreasonably dangerous. The fact that the defect did not cause the initial accident does not bar strict liability.