Daly v. General Motors Corp.

Supreme Court of California
20 Cal. 3d 725, 575 P.2d 1162, 144 Cal. Rptr. 380 (1978)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The principles of comparative fault apply to actions founded on strict products liability. A plaintiff's recovery may be reduced, but not barred, to the extent that their own negligence was a contributing cause of their injuries.

Facts:

In the early morning of October 31, 1970, Kirk Daly was driving his Opel vehicle at a speed of 50-70 miles per hour on the Harbor Freeway in Los Angeles.
Daly's vehicle collided with a metal divider fence.
Following the initial impact, the car spun, the driver's door was thrown open, and Daly was ejected from the vehicle.
Daly sustained fatal head injuries as a result of being ejected.
It was undisputed that Daly would have likely sustained only minor injuries had he remained inside the vehicle.
Plaintiffs alleged that the door latch was defectively designed because its exterior push button could be inadvertently depressed by an impact, causing the door to open.
Daly was not using the vehicle's available seat belt-shoulder harness system, nor had he engaged the door lock.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiffs, the widow and children of the decedent Kirk Daly, filed a lawsuit in California superior court against General Motors Corporation and others involved in the vehicle's distribution.
The complaint was based on a single theory of strict liability for a defective door latch design.
At trial, the court, over plaintiffs' objections, allowed the defendants to introduce evidence of Daly's intoxication and his failure to use the vehicle's seat belts and door locks.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendants.
Plaintiffs appealed from the adverse judgment to the Supreme Court of California.

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 comparative fault, which reduces a plaintiff's recovery based on their own negligence, apply to actions founded on the tort of strict products liability?

Opinions:

Majority - Richardson, J.

Yes. A system of comparative fault is extended to actions founded on strict products liability. The fundamental purpose of comparative principles is to assign responsibility for damages in direct proportion to the amount of fault of each party. While strict liability was created to relieve injured consumers from the problems of proof in negligence cases and to place the burden on manufacturers, these goals are not frustrated by applying comparative principles. A defendant's liability remains strict, but a plaintiff's recovery will be reduced to the extent their own lack of reasonable care contributed to the injury. This approach avoids the bizarre anomaly of having assumption of risk be a complete bar to recovery in strict liability while it is only a basis for apportionment in negligence, thereby promoting a more equitable allocation of loss.

Concurrence - Clark, J.

Agrees with the majority's conclusion under the compulsion of Li v. Yellow Cab Co. but expresses significant doubt about its reasoning. The concurrence highlights the inherent difficulty and lack of a logical standard for juries to compare different types of fault, such as a plaintiff's negligence and a defendant's strict liability for a defective product (the 'apples and oranges' problem). While apportionment is necessary to avoid placing the entire burden on one party, the current comparative fault system is inconsistent and unpredictable, and a uniform discount system might be a better, more practical solution.

Concurrence - Jefferson, J.

Concurs in the judgment to reverse the trial court's decision but dissents from the adoption of comparative fault in strict liability cases. The opinion argues that comparing a plaintiff's negligence with a defendant's defective product is illogical and not reasonably subject to comparison, as there is no common denominator. Instructing a jury to apportion fault between these 'noncomparables' will inevitably lead to verdicts based on speculation, conjecture, and guesswork, resulting in an unfair reduction of the plaintiff's recovery.

Dissent - Mosk, J.

No. The majority's decision to inject negligence concepts into strict products liability reduces the pure concept of the doctrine to a 'shambles.' Strict products liability is a distinct tort species focused on the nature of the product, not the conduct of the parties. It is impossible for a trier of fact to rationally weigh the conduct of the plaintiff against the defect of an inanimate object. This change undermines the policy of ensuring that the costs of injuries from defective products are borne by manufacturers, thereby reducing their incentive to produce safe products.

Analysis:

This landmark decision merged two major areas of tort law: comparative negligence and strict products liability. By extending comparative principles to strict liability claims, the court moved away from the traditional all-or-nothing approach, where a plaintiff's assumption of risk could completely bar recovery. The decision establishes that a plaintiff's own fault can reduce their damage award, aiming for a more equitable allocation of loss based on proportional responsibility. This ruling introduced new complexities for juries, who must now weigh a plaintiff's conduct against a product's defect, but it aligned California with a developing national trend and fundamentally altered the landscape of product liability litigation.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Daly v. General Motors Corp. (1978)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature