Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING DEFECTS—MOTOR VEHICLES—C.D. Cal.: No evidence that alleged defects in Porsche Carrera caused driver’s death, (Apr 8, 2016)

By John W. Scanlan, J.D.

The wife of the driver of a 2005 Porsche Carrera GT who was killed in a single-vehicle crash that also killed actor Paul Walker could not prove her product liability claims against Porsche Cars North America because none of the alleged defects caused his death, a federal court in California held in granting summary judgment on all claims to Porsche. As a result, the wrongful death and survival claims against the company also were dismissed (Rodas v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., April 4, 2016, Gutierrez, P.).

An autopsy revealed that the driver had sustained three sets of injuries, each of which was independently fatal. After a second motion to dismiss was granted in part, the remaining product liability claims alleged defects in the suspension’s right rear toe adjustor rod, the absence of a crash cage, substandard side impact protection, and the lack of a fuel cell. Porsche moved for summary judgment on all claims, arguing that evidence of a defect in the suspension component was merely speculative and that there was no evidence that the other alleged defects had a role in the driver’s death.

Crash cage. Strict liability and negligence design defect claims based on the absence of a crash cage could not be maintained. A properly functioning crash cage is designed to prevent intrusion into a vehicle’s passenger compartment, but all three sets of fatal injuries to the driver were caused by impact with the passenger, the interior panel of the car, or objects presented to the driver’s window. As a result, a crash cage would not have prevented his death.

Side impact protection. Summary judgment also was granted on strict liability design defect, negligent testing, and negligent failure to warn claims relating to allegedly substandard side impact protection. Although the driver’s wife argued that an average consumer would not have expected the car to break in half upon its final impact with a third tree, her expert conceded that the driver was killed by an earlier impact with a light pole and that the side impact protection did not have a role in his death.

Fuel cell. Similarly, causation was lacking for negligence and strict liability design defect claims based on the car’s lack of a racing fuel cell. The wife argued that the fuel tank ruptured and spilled fuel on the engine compartment, causing a fire, but the evidence showed that the driver had already been killed before the fuel tank ruptured and there was no evidence that he was alive when the fire started. As a result, the lack of a fuel cell did not cause his death.

Suspension component. Finally, the wife was unable to establish causation for both negligent and strict liability design defect and manufacturing defect claims related to the suspension’s right rear toe adjustor rod. For the strict liability claims, the wife did not offer any admissible expert evidence. A preliminary report by her expert did not apply reliable principles to the case because his analysis was based only upon his observations of the tire tracks a month and a half after the accident, when the tracks had faded, and his explanation for the accident was based on his finding that the right rear tire mark was longer than the left, whereas a police inspection made the night of the crash and later photo analysis showed the opposite was true. An additional declaration from the same expert was inadmissible because it was not only submitted after both the expert disclosure deadline and the rebuttal deadline, it relied upon evidence disclosed to the wife at least four months before the deadline. Furthermore, the declaration could not be considered either a rebuttal report or a supplemental report because it conflicted with his preliminary report and contained entirely new theories based on previously disclosed information.

Finally, Porsche Cars North America could not be liable for the two negligence claims regarding the suspension component because it was only the distributor of the car, not its manufacturer.

The case is No. CV14-3747 PSG (MRWx).

Attorneys: Benjamin Jared Meiselas (Geragos & Geragos, APC) for Kristine M. Rodas. Anika S. Padhiar (Lee, Hong, Degerman, Kang & Waimey) for Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

Companies: Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

Cases: CourtDecisions DesignManufacturingNews WarningsNews MotorVehiclesNews CaliforniaNews