Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Silvestri v. General Motors Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2000 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureProducts LiabilitySummary JudgmentCircumstantial ProofCrashworthinesssummary judgmentproducts liabilityair bag

Facts

Silvestri was driving a new 1995 Chevrolet Monte Carlo when he lost control, struck a utility pole, and suffered severe facial injuries while wearing a seat belt. The vehicle's air bag did not deploy. Silvestri's accident reconstruction experts concluded that the impact was equivalent to a 24 mph head-on barrier collision and that this was inconsistent with the owner's manual statement that the air bag would inflate in moderate to severe frontal or near-frontal crashes and in a straight wall impact at 9 to 15 mph. General Motors' expert concluded the system functioned as designed and that the oblique nature of the crash did not create conditions requiring deployment.

Issue

Whether, under New York law, a plaintiff in a crashworthiness products liability case must present qualified expert testimony identifying a specific air bag defect in order to survive summary judgment. More specifically, the question was whether circumstantial evidence that the air bag did not perform as intended and that other causes of the enhanced injuries were excluded was enough to make out a prima facie case.

Rule

Under New York law, a plaintiff in a products liability case, including a second-collision crashworthiness case, need not prove a specific defect by direct evidence. The plaintiff may establish a prima facie case circumstantially by showing that the product did not perform as intended and by excluding causes of the accident or, in a crashworthiness case, the enhanced injuries, not attributable to the defendant. A case should not be dismissed for lack of expert testimony unless the facts necessary to establish a prima facie case cannot be presented to a reasonably informed factfinder without such testimony.

🔒

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 Buffalo, New York, Dana Mercer was driving a nearly new sedan manufactured by Northlake Motor Works when she struck a concrete median. The owner's booklet stated that the driver's air bag was designed to inflate in moderate to severe frontal crashes and in straight barrier impacts at 10 to 14 mph. Dana's accident reconstruction expert calculated that the impact was equivalent to a 22 mph head-on barrier collision, and a medical engineer opined that her facial fractures were caused by the nondeployment rather than by loose cargo or seat-belt misuse.

If Dana sues Northlake for enhanced injuries under New York law but cannot identify the precise internal defect in the air bag module, what is the strongest argument against summary judgment for Northlake?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion applying New York law, a plaintiff in a second-collision case need not prove a specific internal defect by direct evidence. The plaintiff may proceed circumstantially by showing that the product did not perform as intended and by excluding causes of the enhanced injuries not attributable to the defendant. Here, the booklet, reconstruction evidence, and evidence excluding alternative injury causes are sufficient to create a prima facie case. (Derived from Silvestri v. General Motors Corp. (n.d.).)