Trull v. Volkswagen
Facts
David and Elizabeth Trull and their two sons were traveling in a Volkswagen Vanagon when it slid on black ice and collided with an oncoming car. Nathaniel and Benjamin were seated on a rear middle bench seat equipped only with lap belts and were wearing those belts; Benjamin died, and Elizabeth and Nathaniel suffered severe brain injuries. In the products liability action, the plaintiffs alleged that defects in the Vanagon’s design made the injuries more severe than they otherwise would have been, including its forward-control construction and the absence of shoulder belts on the rear bench seats. After a jury verdict for the defendants, the plaintiffs argued on appeal that the trial court improperly placed on them the burden of proving the nature and extent of the enhanced injuries attributable to the Vanagon’s design.
Issue
In a New Hampshire crashworthiness or enhanced injury case, once the plaintiff proves that a design defect caused enhanced injury, does the plaintiff still bear the burden of proving the specific nature and extent of the enhanced injuries, or does the burden of apportionment shift to the defendant? Relatedly, does New Hampshire recognize manufacturer liability for enhanced injuries caused by defective design in automobile collisions?
Rule
New Hampshire recognizes crashworthiness liability: a manufacturer may be liable for the portion of injury caused by a defective design over and above the injury that probably would have occurred from the collision absent the defect. If the injuries are separate and divisible, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving which injuries and what degree of enhancement are attributable to the defect. If the injuries are indivisible, the plaintiff must prove that the design defect was a substantial factor in producing damages over and above those probably caused by the original collision; once that showing is made, the burden shifts to the defendant to apportion the injuries among the initial collision, the defect, and any other source.
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
Test yourself
If Granite Peak argues it cannot be liable because its design did not cause the collision itself, which is the best response under the governing rule?