Opinion ID: 1175735
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: (1) Cause of Action for Aggravation of Injuries Due to Defect

Text: Defendants contend that they are not liable as a matter of law because a collision is not a normal, proper or intended use of an automobile and therefore the manufacturer is under no duty to design an automobile so as to prevent any aggravation of injuries resulting from a collision which occurs for reasons wholly unconnected with the design and manufacture of the automobile. ( Evans v. General Motors Corporation (7th Cir.1966) 359 F.2d 822; Hoenig & Werber, Automobile Crashworthiness: An Untenable Doctrine (1971) 20 Clev.St.L.Rev. 578.) In Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 121, 126 [104 Cal. Rptr. 433, 501 P.2d 1153], this court acknowledged the existence of this line of authority but specifically rejected it: Although a collision may not be the `normal' or intended use of a motor vehicle, vehicle manufacturers must take accidents into consideration as reasonably foreseeable occurrences involving their products. ( Passwaters v. General Motors Corporation (8th Cir.1972) 454 F.2d 1270, 1276; Larsen v. General Motors Corporation (8th Cir.1968) 391 F.2d 495, 501-503; 80 Harv.L.Rev. 688, 689 (1967); contra, Evans v. General Motors Corporation (7th Cir.1966) 359 F.2d 822, 825....) The design and manufacture of products should not be carried out in an industrial vacuum but with recognition of the realities of their everyday use. In Cronin the driver of a bakery truck was injured when another vehicle forced the truck off the road and into a ditch. The impact broke an aluminum hasp holding the bread trays in place and the trays were driven forward against the driver, propelling him through the windshield. We upheld a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the manufacturer of the truck declaring that liability rested not on the basis that the hasp caused the collision but only that its defectiveness was a substantial factor contributing to [the plaintiff's] injuries. ( Id., at p. 127.) In the instant case the jury was properly instructed to the effect that if the station wagon was defectively designed or manufactured in such a manner that the horn assembly caused plaintiff to sustain greater injuries in the collision than she would have otherwise sustained absent the defect, then the manufacturer and distributor of the vehicle would be liable to the extent of such aggravation of her injuries. This instruction contained a principle of liability consistent with our ruling in Cronin.