Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, CAUSATION—MOTOR VEHICLES—W.D. Wash.: Claims against truck seller dismissed because it did not manufacture or install after-market sleeper berth, (Sep 12, 2024)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

The relevant product that caused the injuries was the sleeper berth, not the freightliner itself.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed claims against the seller of a freightliner by the estate of an individual killed in a traffic accident, finding that the relevant product that caused the injuries is the after-market sleeper berth that was added to the truck after it left the seller’s control, not the freightliner itself. The court agreed with the seller that the estate’s complaint alleged that the decedent would likely have remained uninjured or only minorly injured if the sleeper berth had been properly constructed (United Financial Casualty Company v. Aman Expedite, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-00587-BJR (W.D. Wash. Sept. 9, 2024)).

Installation of sleeper berth. Daimler Trucks North America, LLC (DNTA) designed and manufactured a freightliner box truck purchased by Houston Freightliner, Inc. (HFI) and sold to Aman Expedite, LLC (Aman). The estate of an individual killed in a traffic accident between two freightliners alleged that Aman contracted with PITRemodeling, Inc., and/or Ralf and Transportation, Inc., (PIT, collectively), to construct a sleeper berth in the back of the freightliner, despite the fact that the freightliner was originally manufactured for day use and had nowhere in the crash-worthy passenger compartment to install a sleeper berth. The estate alleged that PIT cut a hole in the rear of the cab’s passenger safety compartment, through the cargo box, and used wood to frame out a berth in the area at the front of the cargo box, just behind the passenger safety compartment. PIT failed to use high-strength steel reinforcements to keep the sleeper berth enclosed or intact or connected to the passenger safety compartment in the event of an accident, the estate alleged, nor did it install restraints to protect someone sleeping in the berth in the event of an accident.

Traffic accident. At the time of the accident, the decedent was riding in the sleeping berth with another person driving. When the collision occurred, the sleeper berth was completely destroyed, and the decedent was violently thrown from where he was sleeping and pronounced dead at the scene. In its complaint, the estate claimed the decedent would likely have remained uninjured or only minorly injured if the sleeper berth had been built as required for a passenger safety compartment.

The estate argued that HFI “designed, built, and selected various options and components, chose not to select various options and components, marketed, sold, and distributed” the freightliner in question. The estate alleged that HFI failed to equip the truck with forward collision warning, automatic emergency braking, and active brake assist technologies and that this defect was the proximate cause of the decedent’s death. The estate alleged that HFI knew or should have known of the benefit and effectiveness of such technology yet chose not to have it installed on the freightliner. The estate brought a strict products liability and a negligence claim against HFI.

Motion to dismiss. HFI moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the estate failed to plausibly allege that a product designed, manufactured, and/or sold by HFI was the proximate cause of the death, only expressly alleging that the death was caused by the shoddily constructed sleeper berth added to the freightliner after it left HFI’s control; thus, it was neither the manufacturer nor seller of the product that injured the decedent.

Washington Products Liability Act. Under the Washington Products Liability Act (WPLA), a manufacturer may be liable for the construction or negligent design of the relevant product if the product was not reasonably safe when it left the manufacturer’s control and was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. The WPLA imposes liability on a seller who is not the product manufacturer but where the injured party’s harm was proximately caused by the seller’s negligence, breach of an express warranty made by the seller, or intentional misrepresentation or concealment of information about the product. Courts applying Washington law have determined that, where a component of a whole product can be identified as the cause of the injury, that component, rather than the product as a whole, is the “relevant product” for purposes of the WPLA. Further, courts have held that, where a manufacturer had no role in the manufacture and/or incorporation of the defective relevant product that caused the injury into the whole product, the manufacturer is not liable for the claimant’s injury.

The court agreed with HFI that the complaint unequivocally alleged: (1) the accident was not “particularly violent”; (2) the impact did not cause any intrusion into the freightliner’s passenger safety compartment; (3) the freightliner’s passenger safety compartment as constructed proved more than adequate to remain intact and protect its occupants; (4) the driver, riding in the passenger safety compartment, was uninjured in the accident; (5) the decedent was in the sleeper berth at the time of the accident; (6) the decedent was violently thrown during the accident “especially” because the sleeper berth was not crashworthy; and (7) the decedent would likely have remained uninjured or only minorly injured if the sleeper berth had been properly constructed. Thus, the relevant product that caused the injuries is the after-market sleeper berth that was added to the truck after it left HFI’s control, not the freightliner itself. Because HFI did not manufacture or install the sleeper berth, it was not liable for the decedent’s injuries, the court held, and the estate’s claims against HFI failed as a matter of law, requiring dismissal.

The case is No. 2:23-cv-00587-BJR.

Judge: Rothstein, B.

Attorneys: Jensen Merrill (Lether Law Group) for United Financial Casualty Co. Jennifer P. Murray (Murray Dunham & Murray) for Aman Expedite LLC, Malik Trucks LLC and Vitali Konko. Anthony Bolson (Bolson Law LLC) for Estate of Dmytro Pronin.

Companies: United Financial Casualty Co.; Aman Expedite LLC; Malik Trucks LLC; Estate of Dmytro Pronin

MainStory: TopStory CausationNews DesignManufacturingNews MotorVehiclesNews WashingtonNews