Cruz v. DaimlerChrysler Motors Corp.
66 A.3d 446 (R.I. 2013) (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not permit an inference of a seller's negligence for a product malfunction when a significant period of time has elapsed since the sale, as the plaintiff cannot sufficiently eliminate other responsible causes that may have arisen after the defendant relinquished control. Additionally, a claim for negligent misrepresentation requires evidence that the representation was false at the time it was made.
Facts:
- In December 1998, Nelson Cruz purchased a used 1996 Grand Caravan minivan from Ricky Smith Pontiac GMC, Inc. (Ricky Smith), a car dealership.
- Prior to the sale, an employee of Ricky Smith represented to Cruz that the vehicle was safe and had never been involved in an accident.
- Cruz alleged that the vehicle had, in fact, been in at least one prior accident.
- On or about December 30, 2001, approximately three years after purchasing the minivan, Cruz was cleaning the inside of the stationary vehicle.
- While Cruz was cleaning, both of the minivan's front airbags unexpectedly deployed, causing him injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Nelson and Elaine Cruz (plaintiffs) filed a complaint against Daimler-Chrysler Motors Corporation and Ricky Smith Pontiac GMC, Inc. in the Rhode Island Superior Court (trial court).
- Plaintiffs later amended the complaint to add a claim based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
- Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims against Daimler-Chrysler after it filed for bankruptcy.
- Ricky Smith (defendant) moved for summary judgment on all remaining claims.
- The Superior Court justice granted Ricky Smith's motion for summary judgment on all counts.
- The Cruzes (appellants) appealed the entry of summary judgment to the Rhode Island Supreme Court (highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allow for an inference of negligence against a used car dealership for an airbag malfunction that injures the owner three years after the vehicle was sold?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Indeglia
No. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply because the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently eliminate other responsible causes for the airbag deployment given the three-year time lapse between the sale and the incident. The court began by clarifying Rhode Island law, formally reaffirming its adoption of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 328D, which eliminates the rigid 'exclusive control' requirement for res ipsa loquitur and focuses instead on whether the defendant is the 'responsible cause.' While acknowledging that spontaneous airbag deployment is an event that ordinarily does not occur absent negligence, the court stated the negligence must point specifically to the defendant. The three years that passed between Ricky Smith's sale of the vehicle and the incident were too long to permit an inference that a defect existed at the time of sale. During that time, other causes could have arisen, and the plaintiffs failed to eliminate them. The court also rejected the negligent misrepresentation claim, finding that the plaintiffs produced no evidence that the salesperson's statements about the vehicle's safety were false when made in 1998; the malfunction in 2001 did not, by itself, prove the vehicle was unsafe at the time of sale.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies Rhode Island's application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, formally abandoning the 'exclusive control' element in favor of the more flexible Restatement standard focused on identifying the 'responsible cause.' The case serves as a crucial precedent on the temporal limitations of the doctrine, establishing that a long interval between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injury can be fatal to a res ipsa claim. This holding will make it more difficult for plaintiffs in product liability cases to infer negligence against a seller or manufacturer when the product has been out of their control for a substantial period, reinforcing the need for direct evidence of a defect existing at the time of sale.
