defective condition unreasonably dangerous

In 1986 Ford Motor Company manufactured a 1987 Ford Bronco II 4x2 that Cheryl Hale purchased used in June 1999 for a nominal sum after it had accumulated 137,500 miles. On June 17, 2001, Hale was driving the Bronco II along Cromwell Road in Colleton County with several children as passengers, including her daughter in the front seat and Jesse Branham, III in the backseat; no one wore a seatbelt. Hale took her eyes off the road to quiet the excited children, causing the rear right wheel to leave the roadway, then overcorrected to the left, producing a shake that led the vehicle to roll over and eject Branham. Branham filed suit against Ford and Hale in Hampton County alleging a defective rear occupant restraint system and a handling and stability design defect related to rollover propensity, each pursued under negligence and strict liability theories. At trial Branham introduced internal Ford documents dated 1981 and 1982 concerning stability index calculations, Twin I-Beam suspension selection despite engineer objections, J-turn testing results, and expert testimony from Dr. Melvin Richardson and former Ford vice president Thomas Feaheny describing the MacPherson strut as a feasible alternative design. The jury returned a general verdict against both defendants and awarded Branham $16,000,000 in actual damages and $15,000,000 in punitive damages. Ford appealed directly to the Supreme Court of South Carolina under Rule 204(b), SCACR.

In the early hours of October 31, 1970, Kirk Daly, a 36-year-old attorney, was driving his Opel automobile southbound on the Harbor Freeway in Los Angeles at a speed of 50-70 miles per hour. The vehicle collided with and damaged 50 feet of metal divider fence. After the initial impact between the left side of the vehicle and the fence, the Opel spun counterclockwise. The driver's door was thrown open, and Daly was forcibly ejected from the car, sustaining fatal head injuries. It was undisputed that had the deceased remained in the Opel his injuries would in all probability have been relatively minor. There were no eyewitnesses to the accident. Plaintiffs, who are decedent's widow and three surviving minor children, sued General Motors Corporation, Boulevard Buick, Underwriter's Auto Leasing, and Alco Leasing Company. These defendants were the successive links in the Opel's manufacturing and distribution chain. The sole theory of plaintiffs' complaint was strict liability for damages allegedly caused by a defective product. The product was an improperly designed door latch claimed to have been activated by the impact. It was further asserted that but for the faulty latch decedent would have been restrained in the vehicle and although perhaps injured would not have been killed. At trial the jury heard conflicting expert versions as to the functioning of the latch mechanism during the accident. Plaintiffs' principal witness testified that the Opel's door was caused to open when the latch button on the exterior handle of the driver's door was forcibly depressed by some protruding portion of the divider fence. It was his opinion that the exposed push button constituted a design defect. Plaintiffs also introduced evidence that other vehicular door latch designs used in production models of the same and prior years afforded substantially greater protection. Defendants' experts countered with their opinions that the force of the impact was sufficiently strong that it would have caused the door to open, resulting in Daly's death even if the Opel had been equipped with door latches of the alternative designs suggested by plaintiffs. Over plaintiffs' objections, defendants were permitted to introduce evidence indicating that the Opel was equipped with a seat belt-shoulder harness system and a door lock, either of which if used would have prevented Daly's ejection from the vehicle. Daly used neither the harness system nor the lock. The 1970 Opel owner's manual contained warnings that seat belts should be worn and doors locked when the car was in motion for accident security. Daly was intoxicated at the time of collision. The evidence was admitted for the limited purpose of determining whether decedent had used the vehicle's safety equipment. After relatively brief deliberations the jury returned a verdict favoring all defendants. Plaintiffs appealed from the ensuing adverse judgment to the Supreme Court of California. They contended that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that plaintiffs' recovery could be barred or diminished by decedent's contributory negligence and in refusing to instruct on the theory of crashworthiness.

In August 1970, plaintiff Ray Barker was injured at a construction site at the University of California at Santa Cruz while operating a high-lift loader manufactured by defendant Lull Engineering Co. and leased to plaintiff's employer by defendant George M. Philpott Co., Inc. The loader was 23 feet long, 8 feet wide and weighed 17,050 pounds. It was designed to lift loads of up to 5,000 pounds to a maximum height of 32 feet. On the day of the accident the regular operator of the loader did not report for work. Plaintiff, who had received only limited instruction on the operation of the loader and had operated it on only a few occasions, was assigned to run the loader. The accident occurred while plaintiff was attempting to lift a load of lumber to a height of approximately 18 to 20 feet. The terrain on which the loader rested sloped sharply in several directions. When it appeared to several coworkers that the load was beginning to tip, the workers shouted to plaintiff to jump from the loader. Plaintiff leaped from the loader but while scrambling away he was struck by a piece of falling lumber and suffered serious injury. Plaintiff contended that the accident was attributable to one or more design defects of the loader. These included the absence of outriggers, the lack of a roll bar or seat belts, the design of the leveling mechanism, and the absence of a park position on the transmission. Defendants denied that the loader was defective in any respect. They claimed that the accident resulted either from plaintiff's lack of skill or from his misuse of the product. The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff's petition for hearing to consider the propriety of the trial court's instructions on the law of products liability. The trial court instructed the jury on strict liability in tort. The trial court also instructed the jury that if the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably proceeded to encounter a known danger, then the plaintiff may not recover.