Malcolm v. Evenflo Co.
217 P.3d 514 (2009) (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a strict products liability action, evidence of a product's compliance with minimum government safety standards is inadmissible to prove the product is not defective for purposes of compensatory damages, but it is admissible on the issue of punitive damages as it is relevant to the defendant's state of mind.
Facts:
- Evenflo Company, Inc. manufactured the 'On My Way' (OMW) infant safety seat, which featured an open-ended plastic hook design to secure it with a vehicle's seatbelt when used without its base.
- An earlier version, model 206, showed failures in internal testing, including the plastic seat belt hooks breaking. Evenflo initiated a recall, misrepresenting the hazard to the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) as a minor 'cut or pinch' risk rather than a risk of the seat detaching.
- Evenflo made minor modifications to the plastic mold and rebranded the seat as model 207, but it retained the same open-ended belt hook design.
- Prior to the Malcolm accident, Evenflo received reports from other consumers that the belt hooks on model 207 seats had broken during rollover accidents, causing the seats to come loose.
- Jessica Malcolm called Evenflo before using her model 207 seat and was assured by the company that it was safe and not subject to any recalls.
- On July 16, 2000, Jessica Malcolm's vehicle was involved in a rollover accident.
- During the accident, one of the OMW seat's belt hooks broke off, the seat belt slipped out of the other open hook, and the entire seat was ejected from the vehicle.
- The Malcolms' four-month-old son, Tyler, remained strapped in the ejected seat and suffered fatal brain injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Chad and Jessica Malcolm sued Evenflo Company, Inc. in the Sixth Judicial District Court, Park County, Montana (a state trial court), alleging strict liability for a design defect and seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- Before trial, the Malcolms filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence that the OMW model 207 child seat complied with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213 (FMVSS 213).
- The District Court granted the Malcolms' motion, ruling the compliance evidence was irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative.
- Following a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Malcolms.
- The jury awarded the Malcolms $6,697,491 in compensatory damages and, in a separate proceeding, $3,700,000 in punitive damages.
- The District Court denied Evenflo's post-trial motions, including a motion for a new trial.
- Evenflo (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Montana, with the Malcolms as appellees.
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 products liability action, is evidence that a product complies with minimum government safety standards admissible on the issues of design defect and punitive damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Morris
No as to design defect; Yes as to punitive damages. In Montana, evidence of compliance with minimum government safety standards is inadmissible for determining compensatory damages in a strict products liability case because it improperly injects negligence concepts, such as reasonableness of conduct, into a strict liability analysis which must focus solely on the condition of the product. However, such evidence is admissible when determining liability for punitive damages because it is relevant to the defendant's state of mind and whether it acted with actual malice or fraud. The court distinguished between strict liability, which focuses on the product's condition regardless of the manufacturer's care, and punitive damages, which require an inquiry into the manufacturer's conduct and mental state. Citing Lutz v. National Crane Corp., the court affirmed the exclusion of compliance evidence for compensatory damages to maintain the 'bright line' between strict liability and negligence. Conversely, citing Sunburst School Dist. No. 2 v. Texaco, Inc., the court held that a defendant must be allowed to present evidence of its compliance efforts to rebut allegations of the malicious mental state required for punitive damages.
Concurring - Chief Justice McGrath
I concur with the majority opinion but suggest that in future cases involving this evidentiary split, trial courts should consider bifurcating the trial. A bifurcated process, where the jury first decides liability and compensatory damages and then separately considers punitive damages, could resolve the dilemma of evidence being admissible for one purpose but not another. This would allow the jury to hear the compliance evidence only during the punitive damages phase, ensuring fairness to all parties without causing confusion.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Rice
I concur with reversing the punitive damages award but dissent from affirming the compensatory damages award, and would reverse for a new trial on all issues. The District Court applied its evidentiary ruling in a one-sided and unfair manner. It allowed the Malcolms to characterize the results of government safety tests as 'failures' while prohibiting Evenflo from introducing evidence that the seat had officially 'passed' those same tests. This violated the rule of completeness and created a misleading impression for the jury, which constitutes reversible error affecting both compensatory and punitive damages.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Nelson
I concur in affirming the compensatory damages award but dissent from reversing the punitive damages award. Allowing compliance evidence for punitive damages creates an unworkable standard for juries and erodes Montana's strong strict liability principles. Furthermore, any error in excluding the compliance evidence was harmless because the evidence of Evenflo's actual fraud and malice—including lying to regulators and consumers about known, deadly defects—was so overwhelming that the compliance evidence would not have changed the outcome of the punitive damages verdict.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces Montana's distinctive, consumer-protective approach to strict products liability by refusing to allow a manufacturer's compliance with minimum safety standards to serve as a defense against a design defect claim. By explicitly rejecting the Restatement (Third) of Torts §4, the court cemented the 'bright line' between strict liability's focus on the product and negligence's focus on conduct. However, the ruling creates a significant procedural complication by deeming the same evidence admissible for punitive damages, which forces an inquiry into the manufacturer's state of mind. This evidentiary split will likely compel lower courts to adopt more complex jury instructions or bifurcated trial procedures to manage the risk of jury confusion in future product liability cases where both compensatory and punitive damages are sought.
Unlock the full brief for Malcolm v. Evenflo Co.