Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, CAUSATION—MOTOR VEHICLES—E.D. Mo.: Dismissal of negligent design claims inappropriate due to unanswered factual questions in truck rollover case, (Jun 3, 2024)

By Susan L. Smith, J.D., M.A.

Although the State Highway Patrol determined that the driver caused the rollover by failing to maintain his lane of traffic, North Carolina law provides that there may be more than one proximate cause of an injury.

A federal district court in Missouri denied a truck manufacturer’s request to dismiss the negligence claims of a man who was injured in a truck rollover accident after finding that factual questions remained regarding whether the man’s actions and/or the alleged defects in the design of the truck caused his injuries. The man alleged that Volvo Group North America, LLC (VGNA) breached its duty to exercise reasonable care in the design, testing, manufacture, and sale of the semi-truck. VGNA argued that the man’s negligence per se and failure to use reasonable care operating the semi-truck were the proximate causes of his injuries, which barred recovery under North Carolina law. The court explained that under North Carolina law, when two or more proximate causes coincide in producing an injury, both parties are jointly and severally liable. The court found that factual questions remained regarding the cause of the man’s injury; thus, the court denied VGNA’s motion for summary judgment (Ali v. Trans Lines, Inc., No. 4:21CV214HEA (E.D. Mo. May 31, 2024)).

The accident. The man alleged that he sustained personal injuries after his 2020 Volvo truck rolled over on August 15, 2020. The man drove the semi-truck out of the right-hand lane and across the solid white line and rumble strips on the right side of the road. Subsequently, he tried to pass a van by moving to the left-hand lane while travelling at a speed of 71.5 mph. In attempting to overtake the van, which was in the right-hand lane, the semi-truck went off the highway and onto the grass median at a speed of 72.7 mph. While the driver attempted to drive the semi-truck back on to the highway, the semi-truck rolled on its side. A representative of the Missouri State Highway Patrol investigating the cause of the accident concluded that the man caused the rollover by failing to maintain his lane of traffic.

Allegations. The man alleged that VGNA knew at the time it designed the 2020 Volvo VNL platform that certain of its VNL semi-trucks may be involved in accidents, including rollover accidents. His negligence claim asserted that VGNA failed to: (1) equip the subject semi-truck with crash avoidance technology; (2) equip the truck with a seat belt pretensioner and/or automatically retracting seat; (3) equip the truck with laminated side window glass and/or rollover/side curtain airbags; (4) provide adequate warnings of the lack of crash avoidance technology and adequate passive restraint system; and (5) provide adequate testing and/or inspection to ensure the vehicle was suited for its intended purpose. None of the man’s experts asserted or testified to a manufacturing defect in the semi-truck.

VGNA’s expert testimony. VGNA’s expert reconstructionist opined that the accident was consistent with inattentive driving by the man; had he maintained his position on the road, the rollover accident would not have occurred. VGNA’s biomechanical expert will opine that the rollover accident was caused by the man driving off the road and into the median and then overcorrecting to get back on the road.

Proximate cause. The man asserted that VGNA’s semi-truck was negligently designed because it failed to include a laminated driver’s side window. He contended that had the semi-truck been equipped with a laminated window, his arm would not have broken out the window, which resulted in injuries to his arm. Thus, he argued that the negligent design of the truck was the proximate cause of his injuries, even though his actions may have caused the accident. The man further argued that these actions were foreseeable.

The court noted that under North Carolina law, there may be more than one proximate cause of an injury. When two or more proximate causes join and concur in producing an injury, the parties are jointly and severally liable. The court explained that, except in cases where it is clear there cannot be two opinions, the question should be left for the jury to determine whether the intervening act and the resultant injury were such that the original wrongdoer could reasonably have expected the injury to occur as a result of his own negligent act. The court concluded that factual questions remained as to the cause of the injury; therefore, summary judgment was not proper.

The case is No. 4:21CV214HEA.

Judge: Autry, H.

Attorneys: David A. Brose (Langdon and Emison LLC) for Rooble Ali. Jennifer L. Maloney (Baker Sterchi LLC) for Volvo Group North America, LLC.

Companies: Volvo Group North America, LLC

Cases: CourtDecisions DesignManufacturingNews MotorVehiclesNews MotorEquipmentNews ExpertEvidenceNews CausationNews MissouriNews