Warner Fruehauf Trailer Co. v. Boston
654 A. 2d 1272, 1995 D.C. App. LEXIS 38, 1995 WL 77351 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a strict liability action for a design defect, the assumption of risk defense requires the defendant to prove the plaintiff had actual, subjective knowledge of the specific product defect and its resulting danger. A directed verdict for the plaintiff on liability is proper when their uncontradicted expert testimony overwhelmingly establishes that the product's risks outweigh its utility and that safer, feasible alternatives existed.
Facts:
- William Boston, a supervising mechanic for Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO), responded to an emergency call.
- He obtained a truck he had never used before, which was equipped with an Anthony A-146 single-cylinder liftgate distributed by Warner Fruehauf.
- The liftgate was designed with a single hydraulic cylinder and lacked any backup safety system to prevent a free-fall in the event of a mechanical failure.
- After Boston and a crew member used the liftgate, it was returned to a near-vertical position.
- As Boston approached the liftgate to attach safety chains, the 1050-pound metal platform suddenly malfunctioned and fell on him.
- The platform struck Boston and severely injured his hip.
- Prior to the accident, Boston had received only a brief, 10-minute safety class on liftgates in general and had never used a single-cylinder liftgate or seen a piece of hydraulic equipment fail.
Procedural Posture:
- William and Elizabeth Boston sued the liftgate distributor, Warner Fruehauf Trailer Company, Inc., in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (trial court) for strict liability based on a defective design.
- In the first trial, the judge gave the jury an assumption of risk instruction over the Bostons' objection.
- The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, Warner Fruehauf.
- The Bostons filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial judge granted, ruling that the assumption of risk instruction was not warranted by the evidence.
- A second trial was held before the same judge.
- At the close of all evidence in the second trial, the judge granted a directed verdict in favor of the Bostons on the issue of liability.
- The case was submitted to the jury on the issue of damages only, which awarded the Bostons $550,000.
- Warner Fruehauf, as appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of a new trial and the subsequent directed verdict to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
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 design defect action, is a directed verdict in favor of the plaintiff on liability appropriate where the evidence shows the plaintiff lacked actual knowledge of the specific defect for an assumption of risk defense, and the plaintiff's uncontradicted expert testimony establishes that the product's risks outweighed its utility and that safer, feasible alternatives were available?
Opinions:
Majority - Belson, Senior Judge
Yes, a directed verdict for the plaintiff is appropriate under these circumstances. To establish an assumption of risk defense in a strict liability action, the defendant must prove the plaintiff had subjective, actual knowledge of the specific defect—here, the lack of a backup safety system—and appreciated the danger of a potential free-fall. Boston's general experience as a mechanic was insufficient to establish this, and there was no evidence he knew of the design's specific flaw. Furthermore, the court adopted a risk-utility balancing test for design defect claims. The plaintiffs' uncontradicted expert testimony established that the liftgate's single-cylinder design posed a severe risk of injury, and that safer, economically and technologically feasible alternatives (like dual-cylinder systems) were available. Because Warner Fruehauf failed to offer any evidence to rebut the plaintiffs' case or to demonstrate that the design's utility outweighed its inherent risks, no reasonable juror could have found for the defendant, making the directed verdict on liability proper.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the high bar for the assumption of risk defense in District of Columbia strict liability law, requiring proof of the plaintiff's subjective knowledge of a specific defect, not just general awareness of potential danger. The court also formally adopts the risk-utility balancing test for design defect claims, aligning the jurisdiction with the modern trend in products liability. The ruling provides a clear precedent for granting a directed verdict in favor of a plaintiff when their expert evidence on a product's defect is overwhelming and the defendant fails to present any substantive rebuttal, emphasizing that a defendant cannot simply rest on cross-examination to create a triable issue of fact.
