Opinion ID: 328550
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Establishing a Defect in Performance

Text: 53 The District Court settled on its definition of defect in part because it feared that an alternative interpretation would force the Government to attempt to show at trial that every failure was not due to owner abuse, thereby negat(ing) any practical value of the notification scheme outlined in the Act. 82 Were this the case, we might well be more receptive to the District Court's approach. As this court recently noted, it is our duty to favor an interpretation which would render the statutory design effective in terms of the policies behind its enactment and to avoid an interpretation which would make such policies more difficult of fulfillment, particularly where, as here, that interpretation is consistent with the plain language of the statute. 83 However, we do not find the District Court's approach necessary to the practical and efficient administration of the defect notification provision. 54 An enforcement proceeding under the Act is a trial de novo with the burden on the Government to prove a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. In discharging its burden in the present action, the Government need only establish a significant number 84 of Wheel failures resulting from operation of Trucks, in fact. 85 Where the Government introduces evidence of a significant number of failures as to which causes like age and expected wear and tear have been negated, it is entitled to rely on a presumption that such failures occurred under conditions of operation that were either within the parameters specified by the manufacturer or reflect reasonably-to-be-expected vehicle abuse (ordinary abuse) or failure to maintain. Where, as here, the relevant component is designed to function without replacement or repair for the life of the vehicle, a prima facie case of defect can be made simply by showing a significant number of failures. 86 The underlying presumption comports with the realities of vehicle operation and promotes fair and efficient enforcement of the statute. 87 55 The presumption arising from proof of a significant number of wheel failures is not irrebuttable. It is here that we depart from the District Court, which tolerated no defense other than proof that the failures did not occur. We hold that the Act permits the manufacturer to establish, as an affirmative defense, that the failures were attributable to gross and unforeseeable owner abuse or unforeseeable neglect of vehicle maintenance. 88 This is in accord with the 1974 House Report and the aforementioned commonsense limitation on the safety requirements of the Act. 89 56 We have pondered the possibility that our approach may enable a manufacturer to attempt to avoid notice and correction obligations by dragging out the enforcement proceedings. That danger would appear inherent in any scheme designed to afford the manufacturers a fair opportunity to establish that gross and unforeseeable owner abuse caused the component failures. The danger is mitigated somewhat by the 1974 amendment allowing the Secretary to order provisional notification pending the resolution of the enforcement action. 90 And a trial on the issue of defect could be avoided whenever the Government introduced cognizable evidence establishing that a significant number of failures occurred on vehicles operated within the manufacturer's specifications or departures therefrom that the manufacturer could not reasonably contend constituted gross abuse. 91