Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Young
272 Md. 201, 321 A.2d 737 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An automobile manufacturer has a duty to use reasonable care in the design of its vehicle to avoid subjecting the user to an unreasonable risk of enhanced injury in the event of a collision. The 'intended use' of a vehicle includes providing a reasonable measure of safety when, inevitably, collisions occur.
Facts:
- James C. Young purchased a 1968 Volkswagen 'Type I Beetle Sedan' in Alabama.
- Young had seen and relied upon advertisements by Volkswagen stating the vehicle was sound and fit for its intended use as a passenger automobile.
- While operating the Volkswagen in Maryland, Young was stopped at a stop light.
- Another vehicle struck Young's Volkswagen from the rear.
- Upon impact, the Volkswagen's entire seat assembly separated from the floor.
- This failure caused Young to be thrown violently into the rear portion of the car.
- Young's head and body impacted various structures and protrusions in the rear passenger compartment, causing injuries which resulted in his death.
- The plaintiffs alleged Young's death was caused not by the initial impact, but by design defects that enhanced his injuries during the 'second collision' inside the vehicle.
Procedural Posture:
- The mother and widow of James C. Young filed a wrongful death action against Volkswagenwerk AG and Volkswagen of America, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
- Before any other proceedings, the defendants moved to certify a question of law to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court.
- The plaintiffs consented to the motion for certification.
- The United States District Court granted the motion and certified the question regarding Maryland's recognition of the 'crashworthiness doctrine' to the Court of Appeals of Maryland.
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 'intended use' of a motor vehicle under Maryland law include its involvement in a collision, thereby stating a cause of action against the manufacturer for a design that unreasonably increases the risk of injury to occupants following a collision not caused by any defect in the vehicle?
Opinions:
Majority - Eldridge, J.
Yes. Under Maryland law, the 'intended use' of an automobile is to provide reasonably safe transportation, which includes its foreseeable involvement in collisions, and therefore a cause of action is stated against a manufacturer for a design defect that causes or enhances injuries in a collision. The court explicitly adopts the reasoning of Larsen v. General Motors Corp. and rejects the contrary view of Evans v. General Motors Corp. The court held that traditional principles of negligence apply, meaning a manufacturer is liable for a design defect that it could have reasonably foreseen would cause or enhance injuries upon impact, which is not patent or obvious to the user. The fact that the defect does not cause the initial accident but rather a 'second collision' (the occupant hitting the vehicle's interior) is irrelevant. The manufacturer's duty is one of reasonable care, not to produce a crash-proof vehicle. This standard requires balancing factors such as the likelihood of harm, the burden of precautions, vehicle type and price, and the nature of the accident. The court also held that federal safety standards do not preempt common law tort liability and that strict liability under Restatement § 402A is inapplicable to design defect cases, as reasonableness is the core of the inquiry.
Analysis:
This case officially establishes the 'crashworthiness' or 'second collision' doctrine in Maryland, aligning the state with the growing majority of jurisdictions following the Larsen v. General Motors precedent. The decision expands the scope of a manufacturer's duty in product design, holding them accountable not just for defects that cause accidents, but also for those that foreseeably enhance injuries during an accident. This ruling imposes a significant duty on manufacturers to consider occupant safety in crash scenarios as a fundamental part of a vehicle's 'intended use.' It solidifies that negligence, rather than strict liability, is the proper framework for analyzing design defect claims in Maryland, emphasizing a reasonableness standard that balances safety with other factors like cost and utility.
Unlock the full brief for Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Young