Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING DEFECTS—MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT—N.D. Cal.: Manufacturing defect claims against automaker go to jury; defective design and warning claims dismissed, (Jan 14, 2014)

By Pamela C. Maloney, J.D.

Whether there was a manufacturing defect in the trunk lid struts on a rental car was a question for the jury, a federal court in California ruled. However, the driver of the vehicle failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the strut was defectively designed and whether the manufacturer failed to warn of latent defects. (Wu v. Ean Holdings, LLC, d/b/a Alamo Rent-a-Car, January 10, 2014, Grewal, P.)

Background. As the driver of a rented automobile was placing his luggage in the trunk of the car, the trunk lid “slammed” down on his hand, cutting off the tip of his left middle finger. Doctors were unable to reattach the amputated finger. Within four days of the accident, the driver, Jian Wu, retained counsel and sent a preservation letter to the Alamo Rent-A-Car’s administrative office asking the company to preserve the vehicle and trunk lid struts and identifying the car by its VIN number. Alamo, however, did not comply. Instead, it replaced the particular strut at issue and sold the car to a third party. The driver filed a products liability claim against General Motors, the manufacturer of the automobile, and Alamo, stating claims for manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to warn, and negligence. The automobile manufacturer moved for summary judgment on all claims.

Manufacturing defect. In response to the driver’s allegations that the trunk’s strut was defectively manufactured, the manufacturer contended that the driver’s expert had not examined the strut and, therefore, could not identify any latent or other kind of defect when it left manufacturer’s possession, custody or control. Relying on the malfunction theory, the driver claimed that he did not have to prove a specific defect, but could demonstrate an unexplained occurrence and eliminate all reasonable explanations for the occurrence other than the existence of a defect. To support this argument, the driver provided evidence that the strut had been manufactured by GM and had not been replaced prior to the accident. He also introduced the warranty documents relating to the repair made after the accident which confirmed that the struts had not been replaced. Furthermore, the repair records prepared after the accident showed that a “faulty/leaked rear lid strut” had been replaced as part of the repair work. Finally, the driver’s expert testified that strut appears to have suffered prior fracture damage at the disconnected end” and that damage prior to the accident may have been a result of a material or manufacturing defect that remained latent until shortly prior to this incident.” This evidence, while circumstantial, was sufficient to raise a question of fact as to whether a manufacturing defect existed.

Design defect. However, the driver failed to provide sufficient evidence that the strut was defectively designed. According to the manufacturer’s records, there was a less than 0.1 percent replacement rate for these struts. There was no evidence to suggest that the strut’s design had performed below the legitimate, commonly accepted minimum safety assumptions of manufacturer’s ordinary consumers. In light of this lack of evidence, the court concluded that even if the strut had broken, the failure of one strut alone is insufficient to establish a design defect.

Failure to warn. The court also rejected the driver’s failure-to-warn claim stating that a reasonable jury could only find that the danger of the trunk closing on a consumer’s digit was open and obvious and that there was no evidence of a latent defect in the struts about which the manufacturer had a duty to warn.

Negligence claims. The court also refused to grant the manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment on the negligence claims. However, based on its finding that summary judgment was not warranted on the driver’s manufacturing defect claim, the court found that it was not necessary to determine whether the negligence claims merged with the strict liability claims.

The case number is 5:13-cv-00188-PSG. .

Attorneys: Jared A. Washkowitz (JAW Legal) for Jian Wu. Paul Edmond Stephan (Selman Breitman LLP) for Enterprise Leasing Company of Orlando LLC. Anthony Samuel Thomas (Bowman and Brooke) for General Motors.

Companies: General Motors; Enterprise Leasing Company of Orlando LLC

Cases: CourtDecisions DesignManufacturingNews EvidentiaryNews MotorEquipmentNews CaliforniaNews