The South Carolina Supreme Court last week vacated a $31 million verdict for a minor injured in a Ford Bronco rollover accident. Branham v. Ford Motor Co., 2010 WL 3219499 (S.C. 8/16/10). The case raises a number of interesting points for our readers.
This was a product liability action involving a Ford Bronco II. Hale was driving the vehicle with several children as passengers, including her daughter seated in the front passenger seat. No one was wearing a seat belt. Hale admittedly took her eyes off the road and turned to the backseat to ask the children to quiet down. When she took her eyes off the road, the Bronco veered towards the shoulder of the road, and the rear right wheel left the roadway. She responded by over-correcting to the left, which allegedly led the vehicle to roll over.
Plaintiff, the parent of one of the injured passengers, sued. The case against Ford was based on two product liability claims, one a defective seat belt sleeve claim, and the other, a “handling and stability” design defect claim related to the vehicle’s alleged tendency to rollover. The jury returned a verdict of $16,000,000 in actual damages and $15,000,000 in punitive damages.
The trial court had dismissed the strict liability claim regarding the seat belt on the basis that the sleeve was not defective as a matter of law. But the negligence claim shared with the strict liability claim the element that the product be in a dangerous condition unreasonably dangerous. The trial court should thus have dismissed it too, the supreme court said.
The court also found that the closing argument of Branham’s counsel was designed to and likely did inflame and prejudice the jury. The closing argument relied heavily on inadmissible evidence to pump up the punitives claim in requesting that the jury punish Ford. This closing argument invited the jury to base its verdict on passion rather than reason, and the supreme court found that it denied Ford a fair trial.
But the more interesting part of the case related to Ford’s two-fold argument that: (1) Branham failed to prove a reasonable alternative design pursuant to the risk-utility test; and (2) South Carolina law requires a risk-utility test in design defect cases to the exclusion of the consumer expectations test.
The court found that plaintiff had produced sufficient evidence of a feasible alternative design to get to a jury. But, while the consumer expectations test may fit well in manufacturing defect cases, the court agreed with Ford that the test is ill-suited in design defect cases. It thus held that the exclusive test in a products liability design case is the risk-utility test, with its requirement of showing a feasible alternative design.
The very nature of feasible alternative design evidence entails the manufacturer’s decision to employ one design over another. This weighing of costs and benefits attendant to that decision is the essence of the risk-utility test. The court noted that this approach is in accord with the current Restatement (Third) of Torts. The court noted that the Third Restatement effectively moved away from the consumer expectations test for design defects, and towards a risk-utility test. While the feasible alternative design inquiry is the core of the risk-utility balancing test in design defect cases, the court went out of its way to note that a jury question is NOT created merely because a product can be made safer. There is a longstanding principle that a product is not in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous merely because it “can be made more safe.”
The court sent the case back for a new trial.