Florida Senate Moves to Curb Liability Suits Against Car Makers

The Florida Senate has approved a bill that would change the apportionment of damages in product liability cases so that a judge or jury must consider the fault of all parties. The bill is designed to shield or limit the liability of automobile companies that are currently on the hook for all damages if a safety defect contributes to the increased severity of an injury due to an accident.

By a vote of 28 to 12 that fell largely along party lines, Republican lawmakers sought to reverse a 2001 Florida Supreme Court ruling in D’Amario v. Ford Motor Co. In that case, two intoxicated minors were involved in a wreck that resulted in the death of the driver and the passenger suffering severe burns that resulted in the loss of three of his limbs. The surviving passenger’s mother then sued Ford alleging that a defective relay switch caused his injuries. Clifford Harris’ the passenger’s mother won the case but the Supreme Court threw out the lower court’s rule on the basis it didn’t let in evidence that the driver and passenger were intoxicated.

The ruling set off a legal firestorm around the state.

Senator John Thrasher (R-St. Augustine) said the high court was just “plain wrong” when it came to deciding the case. “The policy decision they decided was that that the jury –the jury we all hold sacrosanct—would not be able to hear all the evidence in these cases,” he said

At issue in the case and bill is the so-called “Crashworthiness Doctrine.” Prior to 1968, courts around the countries didn’t allow auto companies to be held liable in cases where the driver’s negligence or the actions of a third-party caused an accident. This applied even to cases where an automobile defect contributed to the injuries.

That changed with the 1968 ruling by the U.S. Eighth District Court of Appeals decision in Larson v. General Motors Corp. In that case, the court held that since accidents are inevitable or foreseeable, manufacturers have a duty to design a safe product. The ruling set off legal debates around the country including the current issue before Florida lawmakers.

Courts around the country adopted the Larson decision in different forms leading to the crashworthiness doctrine. The majority of states took the approach that the auto maker’s liability could be reduced by the fault of the driver or third party that initiated the accident. Courts supported their views, ranging from the rationale that it is a matter of “general fairness” to the theory in the case of General Motors Corp. v. Farnsworth that comparative fault “enhances the public’s interest in deterring drivers from driving negligently.”

A minority of states has adopted a crashworthy test that states that because a car manufacturer is solely responsible for any product defects, the car manufacturer is solely liable for the enhanced injuries caused by any such defects. Instructive is an Ohio case where a federal judge forbade a jury from hearing evidence that a driver was intoxicated saying that it would prejudice the jury. The Ohio judge held that since such front-end crashes are foreseeable, under Ohio law it is incumbent on car manufacturers to design and build vehicles that would protect drivers in such accidents.

Following the Ohio case, the Florida Supreme Court seemingly upheld the majority opinion behind Larson by establishing the concept of contributory negligence stating: “A plaintiff’s recovery of damages for harm caused by a product defect may be reduced if the conduct of the plaintiff combined with the product defect causes the harm and the plaintiff’s conduct fails to conform to generally applicable rules establishing appropriate standards of care.”

The Florida Supreme Court in 1973 changed its mind and adopted a pure comparative position, which is codified in state law. In 2006, the legislature repealed the application of joint and several liability in cases involving negligence.

Prior to 2001, Florida generally applied comparative fault principles to crashes where the driver’s negligence contributed to the initial or enhanced injury. In Kidron, Inc., v. Carmon (1995), the court opined that “fairness and good reason require that the fault of the defendant and of the plaintiff should be compared with each other with respect to all damages and injuries.”

But in the D’Amario case, the high court retreated from its previous position and admittedly took the minority view of Larson, saying the principles of comparative fault can’t apply to crashworthy cases. Comparing auto accidents to medical malpractice claims, the justices noted that the initial injuries that may require medical treatment is not considered the legal cause of the enhanced injuries resulting from negligent treatment.

As applied to car accidents, the court found that a driver’s liability second injury caused by a defective product makes an unknowable assumption of the driver’s condition following the first injury. In other words, you can’t split the injury and say this wound is from a front-end collusion and this wound is from a defective airbag that failed to deploy. The court, therefore, concluded that admitting into evidence the intoxication of the car’s driver and passenger could unduly sway the jury and shift their focus from determining the causes of the enhanced injuries.

Bill sponsor Senator Garrett Richter (R-Naples) said the bill is needed to restore the judicial process to its initial intent of giving everyone their say before being judged. “The jury needs the tools to make informed decisions and we must allow vital and relevant information to be heard.” Richter said. “Lady Justice is blind, but she isn’t deaf.”

But some lawmakers voiced concern the bill could just let some defective products into the market while giving state citizens’ fewer rights to seek remedies. “What we are doing here is not just a lot of legalese. We’re reversing a court cast that involves real people, Floridians,” said Senator Maria Sachs (D-Delray Beach). “Floridians buy these vehicles and we are led to believe that they will be safe from inherent defects.”

If enacted the bill would apply retroactively and overrule D’Amario v. Ford Motor Company. The general rule of is that a statute may apply retroactively if there is a clear legislative intent in the law change. Also, the new statute must not impair vested rights, create new obligations or impose new penalties.

Topics Lawsuits Florida Auto Legislation Ohio Manufacturing Politics