Webb v. Navistar International Transportation Corp.

Supreme Court of Vermont · 1996 · Torts

TortsProducts liabilityStrict products liabilityFailure to warnComparative causationstrict products liabilitydesign defectfailure to warn

Facts

Bruce Webb stood on the draw bar of a 1978 Navistar Model 464 tractor while his father drove it on a public road at night to look for cows, and a car struck the tractor from behind, seriously injuring Webb's legs. Plaintiffs claimed the tractor was defectively designed because it allowed operation of a white rear field light on highways without separate red tail lights and that Navistar failed to give adequate warnings about that danger. The tractor had a red taillight, amber flashers, rear reflectors, and a slow-moving-vehicle triangle, but at the time of the accident the flashers and taillight did not work, the reflectors were missing, and Webb's position on the draw bar blocked the triangle. Webb testified that he used the rear field light on the highway because he thought more light was better, and the car driver testified he mistook the white rear field light for the headlight of an approaching one-eyed car.

Issue

In a Vermont strict products liability action for design defect and failure to warn, may the plaintiff's own negligent conduct be considered under comparative causation principles to reduce recovery? If so, was the judgment sustainable where the jury was not instructed on comparative causation?

Rule

Comparative causation principles apply in Vermont strict products liability actions. A plaintiff in strict products liability still must prove that the product was defective or unreasonably dangerous and that the defect or inadequate warning proximately caused the injury, but the plaintiff's own causal responsibility may also be considered rather than leaving recovery to an all-or-nothing system.

🔒

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 rural Ohio, Elena Ortiz bought a hay baler manufactured by Red Hollow Equipment. The baler could be operated in a roadside transport mode that activated a bright rear work lamp, and Elena used that lamp while driving at dusk even though she had also failed to replace missing reflectors. A pickup truck struck the baler from behind, and Elena sued on a strict products liability theory alleging defective design and inadequate warnings.

If the jury finds the baler's transport-light system defective and its warnings inadequate, but also finds Elena's own conduct helped cause the collision, what is the best result under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority adopted comparative causation in Vermont strict products liability actions. A plaintiff still must prove a defect or inadequate warning and proximate cause, but the plaintiff's own causal responsibility may be considered to reduce recovery rather than trigger an all-or-nothing result.