Lenhardt v. Ford Motor Company
47 A.L.R. 4th 609, 102 Wash. 2d 208, 683 P.2d 1097 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a strict liability action for a design defect based on the consumer expectations test, evidence of industry custom is not admissible on behalf of the defendant to show that a product was reasonably safe. Such evidence improperly shifts the focus from the product's condition to the manufacturer's conduct, which is a negligence concept irrelevant in strict liability.
Facts:
- Melvin Lenhardt owned a van manufactured by Ford Motor Company.
- Lenhardt put the van's transmission in 'park' and exited the vehicle while the engine was still running.
- The transmission slipped from 'park' into 'reverse' on its own.
- The van began to roll away, and Lenhardt was injured when he attempted to stop it.
- At trial, Lenhardt's expert witness testified that minor changes to two components, based on Ford's internal memoranda, could have eliminated the dangerous characteristic of the transmission system.
- Lenhardt's expert did not compare Ford's transmission design to those of other automobile manufacturers.
Procedural Posture:
- Melvin Lenhardt sued Ford Motor Company in federal trial court, alleging strict liability for a design defect.
- At trial, Ford sought to introduce evidence that other manufacturers used similarly designed transmissions.
- The federal trial court ruled this evidence of industry custom was inadmissible as it was not relevant to the consumer's reasonable expectations.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Lenhardt.
- Ford, as appellant, appealed the evidentiary ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit certified the legal question regarding the admissibility of industry custom evidence to the Supreme Court of Washington.
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 strict liability cause of action for a design defect arising prior to the Washington Tort Reform Act, is evidence of a manufacturer's compliance with industry customs and standards admissible as a relevant factor in evaluating the reasonable expectation of the ordinary consumer?
Opinions:
Majority - Brachtenbach, J.
No. In a strict liability cause of action arising prior to the Washington Tort Reform Act, evidence of compliance with industry customs and standards is not always admissible as a relevant factor in evaluating the reasonable expectation of the ordinary consumer. Washington's strict liability law utilizes a buyer-oriented approach, focusing on the product's safety and the consumer's reasonable expectations, not the seller's conduct. Introducing evidence of industry custom shifts the jury's focus from the product to the reasonableness of the manufacturer's design choice, which improperly injects negligence concepts into a strict liability claim. The core inquiry is whether the product is dangerous beyond what an ordinary consumer would contemplate, and the manufacturer's liability is measured by the product's characteristics, not by its behavior or whether it followed industry trends.
Dissenting - Dimmick, J.
Yes. Evidence of industry custom should be considered a relevant factor for the jury in determining consumer expectations. The consumer expectations test is inherently a balancing test that requires an evaluation of reasonableness, weighing a product's safety against its utility and cost. Industry custom is highly probative of factors such as the technological feasibility of safer designs, the cost of such improvements, and the impact on the product's utility. Excluding this evidence denies the trier of fact relevant information needed to perform the risk-utility balancing that is fundamental to determining whether a product's design is reasonably safe as contemplated by the ordinary consumer.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Washington's common law consumer expectations test as a pure form of strict liability, distinct from negligence, for cases preceding the Tort Reform Act. By excluding evidence of industry custom, the court reinforced that the sole focus must be on the product itself from the consumer's perspective, not on the reasonableness of the manufacturer's conduct. This creates a high bar for manufacturers, as they cannot defend a design by showing they adhered to industry norms if that norm is deemed unsafe by a jury. The ruling starkly contrasts with the later statutory framework, which explicitly allows such evidence by shifting the standard for design defects closer to negligence.
