Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Wilson v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.

United States District Court · Civil Procedure

Civil Procedurediversityseat belt evidenceproducts liabilitymitigation of damagesseat belt defensemitigationdesign defect

Facts

Plaintiff was driving a 1972 Volkswagen Type I sedan in a single-car accident on Interstate 95 near Fredericksburg, Virginia, on April 1, 1973. The car was equipped with seat belts, and defendants intended to prove plaintiff was not wearing one at the time of the accident. Plaintiff suffered multiple injuries that rendered him a paraplegic. Plaintiff alleged defects in the steering mechanism that caused the accident and a defective roof that collapsed during the rollover and caused his spinal compression fracture.

Issue

Whether the court should admit evidence that the Volkswagen was equipped with seat belts when deciding whether the vehicle was defectively designed, and whether evidence of plaintiff's alleged non-use of the seat belt is admissible, particularly for mitigation of damages, under Virginia law.

Rule

In a diversity action applying Virginia law, evidence that the automobile was equipped with seat belts is admissible on the question whether the vehicle as a whole was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous. Evidence of a plaintiff's non-use of an available seat belt is not admissible as negligence causing the accident, but may be admitted for mitigation of damages if the defendant first produces competent and satisfactory evidence showing the extent to which the plaintiff's injuries would have been avoided by seat belt use. Virginia Code § 46.1-309.1(b), which provides that failure to use seat belts shall not be deemed negligence, does not bar such evidence when offered solely on mitigation of damages.

🔒

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 a diversity products-liability action in Richmond, a federal judge previously excluded evidence of a driver's failure to use an available shoulder harness after granting partial summary judgment on liability, leaving only damages for trial. Before a new trial on both liability and damages, the manufacturer renews its motion and argues the earlier ruling was made in a different procedural posture.

How should the court most likely rule on the driver's argument that the earlier exclusion is binding under law of the case?

Explanation. The majority treated law of the case as a discretionary doctrine, not an inexorable command. Because the earlier seat-belt ruling had been made only after liability was foreclosed and only as to damages, the court chose to reexamine the issue once both liability and damages were in play. (Derived from Wilson v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. (n.d.).)