Morgen v. Ford Motor Co.
2003 Ind. LEXIS 903, 797 N.E.2d 1146, 2003 WL 22455770 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a products liability action, the question of whether a claimant's failure to use a manufacturer-provided safety device constitutes a 'misuse' of the product is a question of fact for the jury to decide. Therefore, a trial court does not err by giving a jury instruction on the misuse defense in such circumstances.
Facts:
- On November 14, 1998, Monterey P. Morgen was a passenger in the rear seat of a 1984 Ford Escort Station Wagon driven by Janet Snyder.
- Morgen was not wearing the rear seat belt provided in the vehicle.
- The Escort was stopped at an intersection when it was struck from behind by a Honda Accord.
- The force of the rear-end collision caused the Escort to crash into another vehicle in front of it, and the back of the Escort sustained substantial damage.
- Morgen sustained a severe spinal cord injury in the accident, which rendered him a quadriplegic.
- Morgen's experts alleged his injury was caused by a defective seat design that reduced occupant space during the crash, causing his head to strike the roof.
- Ford's experts contended that the injury occurred because Morgen, being unbelted, 'ramped up' the collapsing seat and was launched into the roof due to the forces of the collision.
Procedural Posture:
- Monterey P. Morgen filed a products liability suit against Ford Motor Company in an Indiana trial court.
- At trial, the court gave a jury instruction on the defense of product 'misuse' based on Morgen's failure to wear his seat belt, over Morgen's objection.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Ford Motor Company.
- Morgen, as appellant, appealed the verdict to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that giving the misuse instruction was an abuse of discretion.
- Ford Motor Company, as appellee, successfully petitioned for transfer to the Supreme Court of Indiana.
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 a trial court commit reversible error by giving a jury instruction on the defense of product misuse where the alleged misuse is a passenger's failure to wear an available seat belt?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, J.
No, a trial court does not commit reversible error by giving an instruction on the defense of product misuse based on a passenger's failure to wear a seat belt. The determination of whether a plaintiff's failure to utilize a provided safety device constitutes misuse of the manufacturer's product is a question of fact for the jury, not a question of law for the court. The jury was properly instructed that misuse is only a defense if the claimant's action was 'not reasonably expected by the seller.' If, as the plaintiff argues, the failure to wear a seatbelt is 'clearly foreseeable,' then the jury would simply find that the conduct was expected and reject the misuse defense, rendering the instruction harmless. Allowing the jury to decide this question encourages manufacturers to equip their products with safety devices, regardless of whether their use is mandatory.
Dissenting - Dickson, J.
Yes, the trial court committed reversible error. It is improper for a court to give a jury instruction on a proposition of law for which there is no supporting evidence. Ford Motor Company presented absolutely no evidence at trial that it did not reasonably expect rear seat passengers to ride without seat belts in 1984. Common sense and the lack of a legal requirement for rear seat belt use at the time make it preposterous to claim such non-use was unforeseeable to Ford. Because there was a total lack of evidence to support an essential element of the misuse defense (unforeseeability), the instruction was given in error and was prejudicial to the plaintiff.
Dissenting - Rucker, J.
Yes, the trial court committed reversible error by giving the misuse instruction. The burden is on the manufacturer to introduce evidence to support the affirmative defense of misuse, which requires showing the consumer's conduct was not 'reasonably expected.' Ford introduced no evidence whatsoever to prove it did not reasonably expect or foresee that a rear passenger would fail to wear a seat belt. The mere fact that Morgen was not wearing a seat belt is insufficient to raise a jury question on the defense. Given Ford's emphasis throughout the trial on Morgen's failure to wear the seat belt, the erroneous instruction could have formed the basis for the jury's verdict and was therefore not harmless.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that the foreseeability of a product's misuse is generally a question of fact for the jury, not a question of law for the judge. It empowers manufacturers in products liability cases to argue that the failure to use a non-mandatory safety feature constitutes misuse, shifting the battleground over foreseeability from pretrial motions to jury persuasion. The ruling may make it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevent juries from considering their own contributory actions, even when those actions are common and arguably foreseeable. The dissent highlights a key tension: whether a defendant must produce affirmative evidence of its own 'reasonable expectations' to be entitled to a misuse instruction.
