Leichtamer v. American Motors Corp.
67 Ohio St.2d 456, 424 N.E.2d 568 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A cause of action for enhanced injuries due to a design defect lies in strict liability in tort. A product's design is considered unreasonably dangerous if it is dangerous to an extent beyond the expectations of an ordinary consumer when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner.
Facts:
- Jeanne Leichtamer and another individual were passengers in a 1976 Jeep Model CJ-7 manufactured by American Motors Corp.
- The driver of the Jeep, who is not a party to this appeal, caused the vehicle to pitch over in an accident.
- The vehicle was equipped with a factory-installed roll bar.
- During the pitch-over, the roll bar assembly failed to provide adequate protection, collapsing onto the occupants.
- This collapse allegedly caused or enhanced the severe injuries sustained by the passengers.
- American Motors Corp. advertised the Jeep CJ-7 as a vehicle for off-road use in rugged terrain.
- American Motors Corp. had not performed any 'crash' tests, 'roll-over' tests, or 'pitch-over' tests on a 1976 Jeep CJ-7 equipped with the roll bar assembly.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeanne Leichtamer and another plaintiff (appellees) filed a lawsuit against American Motors Corp. (appellants) in an Ohio trial court.
- Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding both compensatory and punitive damages.
- American Motors Corp., as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in its entirety.
- American Motors Corp. then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which is the court issuing this opinion.
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 strict liability in tort apply to a design defect case where the defect did not cause the initial accident but allegedly enhanced the plaintiffs' injuries?
Opinions:
Majority - William B. Brown, J.
Yes, the doctrine of strict liability in tort applies to design defect cases involving a 'second collision' that enhances a plaintiff's injuries. The court found no reason to distinguish between manufacturing defects and design defects for the purpose of strict liability, as a defect can emerge from the 'mind of the designer' as well as the 'hand of the workman.' The court adopted the consumer-expectation test, holding that a product is unreasonably dangerous if it fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. Here, the Jeep was advertised for rugged, off-the-road use, creating a consumer expectation of safety in such conditions, including rollovers. The failure of the roll bar to provide protection breached this expectation. The court also upheld the award of punitive damages, finding that encouraging off-road use while failing to test the roll bar's safety constituted a 'flagrant indifference' to the risk of harm, which is a sufficient basis for inferring malice.
Dissenting - Holmes, J.
No, negligence principles, rather than strict liability, should govern design defect cases involving enhanced injuries. The dissent argued that the strict liability standard of 'unreasonably dangerous' is too vague and provides insufficient guidance for juries in complex design cases. A negligence standard, based on 'reasonable care in design,' is a more established and workable framework. The dissent contended that plaintiffs failed to prove justifiable reliance on the roll bar's safety and that a pitch-over accident was not a reasonably foreseeable event. Furthermore, the evidence did not support an award of punitive damages, as the advertising did not rise to the level of malice, and the company's testing decisions for a rare type of accident did not constitute malicious, wanton, or reckless conduct.
Concurring - Clifford F. Brown, J.
Yes. The concurring opinion strongly supported the majority's application of strict liability and its reaffirmation of the principles in Temple v. Wean United, Inc. It argued that even under the dissent's proposed negligence standard, the defendant's failure to test the roll bar system would be sufficient to establish liability. The author asserted that the jury's findings that the defendants acted recklessly and wantonly fully supported the award of punitive damages, and praised the majority's decision as a 'progressive judicial thrust forward in the field of tort law.'
Concurring - Locher, J.
This opinion concurred with the majority's application of strict liability to the claim for compensatory damages but dissented from the portion of the judgment upholding the award of punitive damages.
Analysis:
This decision formally extends the doctrine of strict products liability in Ohio to cover design defects that cause 'second collision' or 'crashworthiness' injuries, where the defect enhances injuries rather than causing the accident itself. It establishes the 'consumer-expectation test' as the primary standard for determining if a design is unreasonably dangerous, solidifying a plaintiff-friendly standard that does not require proof of a feasible alternative design. The ruling's emphasis on advertising as key evidence for shaping consumer expectations gives plaintiffs a significant tool for proving their cases. Finally, the opinion lowers the bar for punitive damages in products liability, allowing an inference of malice from a 'flagrant indifference' to safety, evidenced by a combination of aggressive marketing and inadequate testing.
Unlock the full brief for Leichtamer v. American Motors Corp.