Lexplug logoLexplug

Rossell v. Volkswagen of America

Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc
147 Ariz. 160, 709 P.2d 517 (1985)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In a negligent design case, a manufacturer is held to a standard of reasonable care, which does not require the plaintiff to produce expert testimony establishing that the design deviated from the customary practice of the industry. Evidence of industry custom is admissible but not determinative, as an entire industry may have been negligent.


Facts:

  • Phyllis A. Rossell was driving a 1958 Volkswagen Beetle with her eleven-month-old daughter, Julie Ann Kennon, sleeping in the front passenger seat.
  • Rossell fell asleep at the wheel, causing the vehicle to drift off the road, hit a sign, and then flip over into a cement culvert.
  • The car's battery, which was located inside the passenger compartment, was dislodged and fractured during the crash.
  • The battery in the car was a replacement that was larger than the original and did not fit the vehicle's designed restraint system.
  • Over a period of seven hours following the crash, sulfuric acid from the broken battery slowly dripped onto Julie Ann Kennon.
  • The sulfuric acid caused severe and disfiguring burns to Julie's face, chest, arm, neck, back, shoulder, and hands.

Procedural Posture:

  • Phyllis A. Rossell, on behalf of her daughter Julie Ann Kennon, filed a product liability lawsuit against Volkswagen in an Arizona trial court.
  • Prior to trial, the court granted partial summary judgment for Volkswagen on a strict liability claim related to the battery system design.
  • During the trial, the court granted directed verdicts for Volkswagen on claims related to the heating system and the vehicle's rollover propensity.
  • The case was submitted to the jury solely on the theory of Volkswagen's negligence in designing the battery's location inside the passenger compartment.
  • The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded $1,500,000 in damages.
  • The trial court denied Volkswagen's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (judgment n.o.v.).
  • Volkswagen (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
  • The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the plaintiff (appellee) had failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence or proximate cause.
  • The plaintiff then petitioned the Supreme Court of Arizona for review.

Locked

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 product liability action for negligent design, must a plaintiff present expert testimony establishing the standard of care in the relevant industry and the defendant's deviation from it to make a prima facie case?


Opinions:

Majority - Feldman, Justice.

No. In a negligent design case, a plaintiff is not required to present expert testimony on industry standards to establish the manufacturer's duty and breach. The court rejected the argument that manufacturers should be held to a professional malpractice standard, where the industry's own customs and practices set the legal standard of care. Such a rule would improperly allow an entire industry to lag in safety and set its own, potentially negligent, standards. Instead, manufacturers are held to the general negligence standard of reasonable care. A jury can determine whether a design was unreasonably dangerous by weighing the risks and benefits, aided by expert testimony on the dangers and the feasibility of alternative designs, without explicit testimony that the manufacturer's conduct deviated from industry custom.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies that product manufacturers are subject to the ordinary 'reasonable person' standard in negligent design cases, rather than the specialized standard used in professional malpractice suits. It prevents industries from insulating themselves from liability by collectively adopting unsafe practices, as compliance with industry custom is not a complete defense. The ruling empowers juries to determine what constitutes a reasonably safe design based on a risk-benefit analysis, thereby strengthening the position of plaintiffs who might otherwise be unable to find an expert willing to testify against an entire industry's standard practice.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Rossell v. Volkswagen of America (1985) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Rossell v. Volkswagen of America