Branham v. Ford Motor Co.
390 S.C. 203, 701 S.E.2d 5 (2010) (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a product liability design defect case in South Carolina, the exclusive test for determining if a product is unreasonably dangerous is the risk-utility test, which requires the plaintiff to prove that a reasonable alternative design could have reduced or avoided the foreseeable risks of harm.
Facts:
- In June 1999, Cheryl Hale purchased a used 1987 Ford Bronco II, which was manufactured in 1986.
- The Bronco II was designed with a Twin I-Beam suspension, which Ford's engineers had recognized would raise the vehicle's center of gravity and increase its propensity to roll over.
- Ford's management selected the Twin I-Beam suspension over alternatives like the MacPherson strut, which engineers preferred for better stability, due to perceived marketing advantages.
- On June 17, 2001, Hale was driving the Bronco II with several children, including Jesse Branham, III, as passengers.
- No one in the vehicle was wearing a seatbelt.
- Hale admittedly took her eyes off the road to address the children in the backseat, causing the vehicle's right rear wheel to leave the roadway.
- When Hale attempted to steer back onto the road, she overcorrected, causing the Bronco II to roll over.
- Branham was ejected from the vehicle during the rollover and sustained serious injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Jesse Branham, III, filed suit against Ford Motor Company and Cheryl Hale in the Hampton County Court of Common Pleas (a state trial court).
- Branham asserted claims of negligence and strict liability against Ford for design defects related to the Bronco II's handling and stability, and its seatbelt sleeve.
- At trial, the judge granted Ford a directed verdict on the strict liability seatbelt sleeve claim but denied the motion for the companion negligence claim and the handling and stability claims.
- The jury returned a general verdict finding both Ford (55%) and Hale (45%) responsible.
- The jury awarded Branham $16,000,000 in actual damages and $15,000,000 in punitive damages against Ford.
- Ford, as the appellant, appealed the judgment directly to the Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a product liability action for a design defect, is the exclusive test for determining whether a product is unreasonably dangerous the risk-utility test, requiring the plaintiff to prove a feasible alternative design?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kittredge
Yes, in a product liability action for a design defect, the exclusive test for determining whether a product is unreasonably dangerous is the risk-utility test, requiring the plaintiff to prove a feasible alternative design. The court abandons the consumer expectations test for design defect cases, finding it ill-suited for complex products. The risk-utility test provides objective factors for a jury, focusing on whether foreseeable risks could have been reduced by a reasonable alternative design, considering factors like cost, utility, and safety. While Branham presented sufficient evidence of an alternative design (the MacPherson suspension) to survive a directed verdict, a new trial is required due to multiple prejudicial errors. These errors include: (1) the improper admission of post-distribution evidence, which unfairly judged Ford's 1986 design decisions with the benefit of hindsight; (2) inflammatory closing arguments that appealed to passion and prejudice; and (3) an improper verdict form that required the jury to apportion fault between joint tortfeasors.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Justice Pleicones
Yes, the risk-utility test is the appropriate standard, but the Court lacks the authority to judicially discard the consumer expectations test, which was adopted by the legislature. The proper approach would be to interpret the existing consumer expectations test in a way that incorporates risk-utility principles for complex design defect cases, as an ordinary consumer expects a manufacturer to have already weighed the product's risks and benefits. This opinion dissents from the majority's conclusion that the "post-manufacture" evidence was inadmissible. The evidence, regardless of when it was created, was relevant to show the foreseeable risks inherent in the original design and the viability of the proposed alternatives, which are key elements of the risk-utility test itself.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant shift in South Carolina products liability law by formally adopting the risk-utility test as the exclusive standard for design defect claims, aligning the state with the Restatement (Third) of Torts and the majority of jurisdictions. This holding heightens the plaintiff's burden, as it is no longer sufficient to argue that a product failed to meet ordinary consumer expectations. Plaintiffs must now present concrete evidence of a safer, cost-effective, and functional alternative design. The court's strict prohibition on using post-distribution evidence to establish liability reinforces the principle that a manufacturer's conduct must be judged based on the knowledge reasonably available at the time of manufacture, not with the benefit of hindsight.
Unlock the full brief for Branham v. Ford Motor Co.