Opinion ID: 1782594
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: secondary injury cases

Text: Both cases before us involve lawsuits premised on the crashworthiness doctrine. Such cases, which are also often referred to as secondary collision or enhanced injury cases, involve both an initial accident and a subsequent or secondary collision caused by an alleged defective condition created by a manufacturer, which is unrelated to the cause of the initial accident but which causes additional and distinct injuries beyond those suffered in the primary collision. One court has explained that the damages sought in such cases are not for injuries sustained in the original collision but for those sustained in the second impact where some design defect caused an exacerbated injury which would not have otherwise occurred as a result of the original collision. Meekins v. Ford Motor Co., 699 A.2d 339, 341 (Del.Super.Ct.1997). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals first recognized a cause of action against an automobile manufacturer for enhanced injuries caused by a defective product in Larsen v. General Motors Corp., 391 F.2d 495 (8th Cir.1968). The Larsen court reasoned that [n]o rational basis exists for limiting recovery to situations where the defect in design or manufacture was the causative factor of the accident, as the accident and the resulting injury, usually caused by the so-called `second collision' of the passenger with the interior part of the automobile, all are foreseeable. Id. at 502. While the court acknowledged that an automobile manufacturer is under no duty to design an accident-proof or foolproof vehicle, it nevertheless concluded the following: [s]uch manufacturer is under a duty to use reasonable care in the design of its vehicle to avoid subjecting the user to an unreasonable risk of injury in the event of a collision. Collisions with or without fault of the user are clearly foreseeable by the manufacturer and are statistically inevitable. Id. Accordingly, the court held: Any design defect not causing the accident would not subject the manufacturer to liability for the entire damage, but the manufacturer should be liable for that portion of the damage or injury caused by the defective design over and above the damage or injury that probably would have occurred as a result of the impact or collision absent the defective design. Id. at 502-03. The ruling in Larsen recognizing a distinct cause of action against manufacturers for secondary collisions caused by defective products has subsequently received widespread approval throughout the country. Florida adopted the principle of Larsen in Ford Motor Co. v. Evancho, 327 So.2d 201, 202 (Fla.1976), wherein we declared: We hold that a manufacturer of automobiles may be held liable under certain conditions for a design or manufacturing defect which causes injury but is not the cause of the primary collision. See also Ford Motor Co. v. Hill, 404 So.2d 1049, 1052 (Fla.1981) (extending crashworthiness doctrine to cases sounding in strict liability as well as negligence). However, while the crashworthiness doctrine is now well established in this state, it is not entirely clear whether or how the principles of comparative fault should apply in such cases. [3] That is the issue presented in the two cases before us today.