Donze v. General Motors, LLC
2017 WL 2153919, 800 S.E.2d 479, 420 S.C. 8 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a crashworthiness case based on strict liability or breach of warranty, a plaintiff's comparative negligence in causing the initial collision is not a defense and does not reduce the manufacturer's liability for enhanced injuries caused by a product defect.
Facts:
- Reid Harold Donze owned a 1987 Chevrolet pickup truck manufactured by General Motors (GM), which was designed with the gas tank located outside the truck's frame.
- In November 2012, Donze and his friend, Allen Brazell, were driving in Donze's truck after allegedly smoking synthetic marijuana.
- While Brazell was driving, he failed to stop at a stop sign and pulled into the path of a Ford F-350 truck.
- The Ford truck collided with the driver's side of Donze's pickup.
- Following the impact, the Chevrolet truck burst into flames.
- Brazell died as a result of the fire.
- Donze suffered only a fractured rib and hip from the initial impact but sustained severe burns to eighty percent of his body from the subsequent fire.
Procedural Posture:
- Reid Harold Donze filed a crashworthiness action against General Motors in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, alleging strict liability and breach of warranty.
- GM filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Donze's recovery should be barred by public policy or, alternatively, reduced by comparative negligence.
- The U.S. District Court denied GM's motion for summary judgment.
- The U.S. District Court then certified two questions of law regarding comparative negligence and public policy 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:
Does comparative negligence in causing an accident apply in a crashworthiness case when the plaintiff alleges claims of strict liability and breach of warranty and is seeking damages related only to the plaintiff's enhanced injuries?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hearn
No. Comparative negligence does not apply to permit the negligence of a plaintiff in causing an initial collision to reduce the liability of a manufacturer for enhanced injuries in a crashworthiness case. The court adopts the minority rule, reasoning that the crashworthiness doctrine presumes a collision will occur and holds manufacturers liable only for the 'enhanced injuries' caused by a design defect. Because the plaintiff's negligence caused the initial accident and the defect caused the enhanced injuries, the two events are legally separate. The concept of 'enhanced injury' already apportions fault by holding the defendant liable only for the increased injury caused by its conduct, not for the injury from the crash itself. Applying comparative negligence would improperly conflate distinct legal theories of strict liability and breach of warranty with ordinary negligence. Furthermore, unlike states in the majority, South Carolina has no statute mandating the application of comparative negligence to strict liability or breach of warranty claims.
Concurring - Justice Kittredge
Yes, concurring in the result. The majority's conclusion is correct in the abstract for a true crashworthiness case where the plaintiff's fault in the initial collision is not a proximate cause of the enhanced injuries. However, this holding should be applied narrowly and with caution. A categorical rule precluding evidence of a plaintiff's fault might violate due process in situations where the manufacturer could prove that the plaintiff's conduct, such as extreme speeding, was a proximate cause of the enhanced injuries themselves, not just the initial collision. The holding should be limited to cases where it is established as a matter of law that the plaintiff's comparative fault did not cause the enhanced injuries.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies South Carolina's position within the minority of jurisdictions that refuse to apply comparative negligence in crashworthiness cases based on strict liability or breach of warranty. It significantly strengthens plaintiffs' positions in such cases by preventing manufacturers from deflecting blame for design defects onto a driver's initial error. The court's reasoning cleanly separates the cause of the accident from the cause of the enhanced injury, reinforcing the core policy of the crashworthiness doctrine: to incentivize the manufacture of safer vehicles that protect occupants in foreseeable collisions. The concurrence, however, signals a potential limitation on this rule, suggesting that evidence of a plaintiff's conduct might still be admissible if it can be shown to be a direct, proximate cause of the enhanced injuries themselves, rather than just the initial crash.
