Plaintiffs win crashworthiness case in Florida high court.

Bucking the trend in most state court systems, the Florida Supreme Court has decided that a jury in a products liability suit against a car manufacturer should not have been told about the driver's negligence that caused the initial collision, given that the plaintiffs' allegations were based on injuries caused by a second event. (D'Amario v. Ford Motor Co., Nos. SC95881, SC96139, 2001 WL 1472600 (Fla. Nov. 21, 2001).)

The case involved a boy who was injured when the Ford car in which he was riding as a passenger crashed into a tree and burst into flames. The driver was allegedly intoxicated and speeding. A witness circled the car twice and noticed a fire in the engine area. Some minutes later, the fire spread and an explosion occurred, engulfing the car in flames. The boy suffered severe burns to much of his body.

The boy and his mother sued Ford Motor Co., alleging that a defective relay switch in the automobile caused the burns. The plaintiffs did not seek damages against Ford for the injuries caused by the initial collision with the tree.

Ford asserted as an affirmative defense that the injuries were proximately caused by the negligence of the driver. Over the plaintiffs' objections, the trial court admitted evidence about the driver's alcohol consumption on the day of the injury. The jury returned a verdict for the defense, and the plaintiffs appealed.

The state's top court observed that in a majority of states, the fault of the plaintiff or a third party in causing the initial crash is recognized as a defense to a crashworthiness case against a product manufacturer. But the minority view, which rejects the application of comparative fault principles, is superior because it focuses on the underlying rationale for imposing liability on manufacturers, the court said.

The court compared the case to those involving medical negligence. Florida courts have concluded that the cause of an initial injury that may require medical assistance is not relevant in determining whether a physician was later negligent in providing care. Just as the injury-causing fault of a patient is not relevant when assessing the doctor's subsequent negligence, the accident-causing fault of the driver should not be relevant in crashworthiness cases in assessing a manufacturer's neglect in designing an automobile or its parts. "The initial accident merely furnished the occasion for the manufacturer's fault to be tested," the court said.

Injecting the issue of the driver's fault into the trial of a crashworthiness case, the court added, tends to unduly confuse the jury by focusing attention on the conduct that gave rise to the accident instead of the alleged defect and its role in causing additional injuries.

"Such confusion is magnified in cases that involve intoxicated drivers, due in large measure to the public's understandable intolerance of drunk driving," the court said. It ordered a new trial in the case.