Yun v. Ford Motor Co.
276 N.J. Super. 142, 647 A.2d 841 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's conduct is not the proximate cause of a plaintiff's harm if the plaintiff's injuries result from a subsequent, intervening act that is so highly extraordinary and unforeseeable that it breaks the chain of causation.
Facts:
- Approximately one month before the incident, Chang Hak Yun and his daughter, Yun Cho Shim, were advised by Kim's Mobile Service Center that the spare tire bracket on their van was damaged and bent.
- Chang and his daughter instructed Kim's not to repair the bracket, stating it would be handled through an insurance claim from a previous accident.
- On November 27, 1988, while driving at night on the Garden State Parkway, the spare tire and part of its mounting bracket fell off the van.
- The driver, Yun Cho Shim, safely pulled the van onto the shoulder of the highway without incident.
- Chang Hak Yun, a 65-year-old passenger, exited the stopped van, ran across two lanes of the dark, rain-slicked highway to the median to retrieve the tire.
- While attempting to run back across the highway with the parts, Chang was struck and fatally injured by a vehicle driven by Precious Linderman.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs filed a product liability and negligence suit in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division (trial court), against Ford Motor Company and other defendants involved in the van's manufacture, sale, and service.
- Defendants Ford, Castle, Universal, Kim, and Miller filed motions for summary judgment.
- The Law Division granted summary judgment for the moving defendants, ruling as a matter of law that their alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of the decedent's injuries, as his own actions broke the causal chain.
- The plaintiffs appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
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 defective product proximately cause a passenger's fatal injuries when, after the vehicle is brought to a safe stop, the passenger undertakes the highly dangerous and unforeseeable act of running across a dark, wet highway to retrieve the fallen part and is struck by another vehicle?
Opinions:
Majority - Villanueva, J.A.D.
No. A defective product does not proximately cause a passenger's injuries under these circumstances. The court held that any potential tortious conduct by the defendants had 'spent its force' once the van was safely stopped on the shoulder of the road. Chang Hak Yun's subsequent decision to run across a dark, multi-lane highway was deemed a 'highly extraordinary' and 'senseless' action that was not a foreseeable consequence of the product defect. This action, combined with the negligence of the driver who struck him, constituted an intervening, superseding cause that broke the chain of causation between the defective bracket and the fatal injury. While proximate cause is typically a question for the jury, it becomes a matter of law for the court to decide when the resulting harm is so extraordinary that reasonable minds could not differ.
Dissenting - Baime, J.A.D.
Yes, for some defendants, a jury should decide if the defective product proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries. The dissenting opinion argued that questions of proximate cause and intervening cause are almost always within the province of the jury. A reasonable jury could find that it was foreseeable that an occupant of a vehicle might attempt to retrieve a spare tire that fell onto a highway. The dissent cautioned that what may seem 'extraordinary' to a judge might seem 'rather ordinary' to a layperson, and therefore, the debatable issue of foreseeability should have been submitted to the jury for its determination rather than being decided by the court as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the boundaries of proximate cause in product liability law, particularly when a plaintiff's own actions contribute to the harm. The decision reinforces that a defendant's liability does not extend to consequences that are 'highly extraordinary' and unforeseeable. It empowers courts to grant summary judgment and decide proximate cause as a matter of law, rather than sending the case to a jury, when a plaintiff’s response to a situation created by a defect is so reckless that it serves as a superseding cause of the injury. This holding serves to limit the scope of liability for manufacturers by placing a boundary based on foreseeability and common sense, preventing liability for bizarre or senseless subsequent events.
