Court Opinion

ID: 9715386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:03:43.391252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:34.536687
License: Public Domain

STEINMETZ, J.
(dissenting). I would return the case to the trial court for a new trial on the issue of liability because I find the trial court, by not striking the evidence of negligence of defendants when dismissing the negligence cause of action and by giving an erroneous *381instruction on the duty to warn as to the use of seat belts, committed prejudicial error and that on retrial a different result is probable. The majority holds there was no prejudice even though the jury possibly could have considered the evidence of negligence in determining that the defect in the design of the seat system was unreasonably dangerous and possibly it could have entered into the jury’s deliberations concerning the defectiveness of the seat system.
This is a difficult legal case made more difficult by the majority’s opinion which I find to be confusing and without precedential value, and in this respect, I agree with the concurring opinion. The injuries to plaintiff are awesome and due deliberations should be given to allow him the right to a fair trial and to receive damages if he is entitled to them. I find it incomprehensible that the jury found under the facts of this case the plaintiff was not negligent for his own care and safety by failing to wear the available rear seat belt. The finding of no negligence is inconsistent with the facts of a head-on crash at a speed of 30 to 50 miles per hour while not wearing a seat belt and sustaining very serious injuries as a result of being propelled forward. The fact that plaintiff was affected by his failure to wear a seat belt is obvious and a finding of no negligence is inconsistent with the evidence and therefore is perverse.
In arriving at its decision, the majority has unnecessarily confused the law in this state as to second impact or enhanced injury doctrine. The evidence was adequate as presented by plaintiff’s experts that plaintiff’s quadriplegia was sustained as a result of the design defect. Bruce Enz testified that the entrapment and capturing capability of the seat backs and the failure of the bracket “enhanced” and caused the injury. Dr. Anthony Sanees also testified that the plaintiff would *382not have sustained his paralyzing injuries except for the design defects.
Larsen v. General Motors Corp., 391 F.2d 495 (8th Cir. 1968) is cited by the majority to approve of the “basic premise behind all tort law which limits a defendant’s liability to that portion of harm which he has in fact caused, as distinguished from harm arising from other sources.” P. 350, supra. That represents the doctrine of enhanced injury since defendant is liable only for the harm or injury caused by that defendant.
The citations of Arbet v. Gussarson, 66 Wis. 2d 551, 225 N.W.2d 431 (1975) and Schnabl v. Ford Motor Co., 54 Wis. 2d 345, 195 N.W.2d 602 (1972), are not relevant to the enhanced injury doctrine. In Arbet, there was one impact with a spontaneous concurrent ignition of fuel from the ruptured gasoline tank. The issue was the lack of safety in the design of the gas tank to withstand the impact. The case was at the pleading stage where all injuries sustained were alleged to have been caused by the design and manufacture defects. The pleading alleged neither plaintiff would have been injured if the station wagon had not been negligently designed. At that stage of the case, there was no issue of the divisibility of injuries and their respective causes.
In Schnabl, the seat belt was alleged faulty so that on impact the plaintiff was not restrained and we held it could have been a substantial factor in causing the death of the plaintiff. Again there was no separation from the one impact and the defective part of the automobile as in the instant second impact case. The injuries in Arbet and Schnabl both occurred in the initial impact and there was no separate impact after the vehicles came to a stop or were in the process of stopping. Schnabl also was concerned with the pleadings which alleged the death of the plaintiff was caused by *383a faulty seat belt. In Schnabl we held that the trier of fact must decide the issue of whether delivery of a faulty seat belt could have been a substantial factor in causing the death even if it played no part in the accident. Id. at 353-54. To determine this issue, the jury would have had to decide whether the death was caused by the accident or the faulty seat belt. The injury sustained in Schnabl was death which was indivisible so that there could be no issue as to what part of the injury was caused by the accident or the defective seat belt. The issue was whether the accident or the seat belt or both were substantial factors in causing the death.
In citing Arbet, the majority states: “Under this doctrine, a manufacturer may be held strictly liable for harm caused by a defective product unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer.” Pages 351, 352, supra. (Emphasis added.) In further discussing Arbet, the majority states:
“The Arbet decision tells us that Sumnicht has a cause of action in strict liability against Toyota for all injuries which the defective seat system was a substantial factor in causing. Arbet, 66 Wis. 2d at 557. This premise forecloses recovery against Toyota for injuries sustained solely in the ‘first collision/ because Toyota’s defective seat system was not a proximate cause of the accident. Requiring Sumnicht to distinguish between the damages sustained in the ‘first collision’ and the ‘second collision’ is part and parcel of his burden of proving causation.” Page 353, supra.
That reads to me like an acceptance of the second impact — enhanced injury doctrine in that the defendant is only liable for damages (injuries) sustained in the second impact and the plaintiff must separate in his proof the injuries sustained in the first and second impact.
*384The majority quotes Larsen for the proposition: “[T] he 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.” Larsen, 391 F.2d at 503. Page 354, supra. That is the enhanced injury doctrine and based on it, Toyota correctly asserts that its liability is nonexistent until the plaintiff shows the extent to which the injuries were enhanced by the defect.
The majority rejects the holding in Huddell v. Levin, 537 F.2d 726 (3d Cir. 1976). I find the three elements required by Huddell to be appropriate and necessary in an enhanced injury defective product case. They are:
“First, in establishing that the design in question was defective, the plaintiff must offer proof of an alternative, safer design, practicable under the circumstances. . . . Second, the plaintiff must offer proof of what injuries, if any, would have resulted had the alternative, safer design been used. . . . We agree in this regard with Judge Barlow in Yetter v. Rajeski, 364 F. Supp. 105, 109 (D.N.J. 1973) that ‘it is absolutely necessary that the jury be presented with some evidence as to the extent of injuries, if any, which would have been suffered . . . had the plaintiff’s hypothetical design been installed. . . .’ Third, as a corollary to the second aspect of proof, the plaintiff must offer some method of establishing the extent of enhanced injuries attributable to the defetcive design.” Id. at 737-38.
None of these elements require the plaintiff to prove a negative fact as Huddell was criticized in Mitchell v. Volkswagenwerk, AG, 669 F.2d 1199, 1204-05 (8th Cir. 1982) relied on by the majority. All of the factors required by Huddell were satisfied by Sumnicht’s evidence according to the majority’s analysis. His experts testified there were alternative designs available which *385were safe, i.e., stronger metal in the seat support bracket hinge that broke, filler material was available for the opening between the seats, cushioning material was available for the critical seat support area. The experts also testified plaintiff’s quadriplegia was caused over and above the other injuries sustained in the accident due to the design defect. These are the requirements of Huddell.
Fox v. Ford Motor Co., 575 F.2d 774 (10th Cir. 1978), relied on by the majority to criticize Huddell incorrectly stated that Huddell “refused to follow the orthodox doctrines of joint liability of concurrent tortfeasors for injuries which flow from their concurring in one impact.” Citing Huddell, 537 F.2d at 787. The Fox court missed the point in that Huddell was not considering joint liability of concurrent tort-feasors for injuries from one impact. Fox then went on at 787 to quote the Restatement of Torts and approve Of enhanced injuries as follows: “Damages may be apportioned between the two causes if there are distinct harms or a reasonable basis for determining the causes of injury.” Restatement of Torts, Second, sec. 433 A. The Fox court considered death an injury and held it is not a divisible injury in which apportionment is appropriate or possible. However, if the relative severity of the two impacts could be opined by experts, then certainly the experts could give an opinion as to which impact caused the death.
Neither Mitchell nor Fox disavow Huddell and yet the majority relies on them to reject two of the three requirements in Huddell. The requirements rejected are that a plaintiff in a “second collision” case must offer proof of what injuries, if any, would have resulted had an alternative, safer design been used and that the plaintiff must offer some method of establishing the *386extent of enhanced injuries attributable to the defective design.
The majority states it is rejecting the enhanced injury doctrine as to special rules of necessary proof, (pages 357, 358, supra) and then states:
“The rule of strict liability, as adopted in Wisconsin, requires proof that the product was in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous, which caused the plaintiff’s harm. The long-standing test for cause in Wisconsin is whether the defect was a substantial factor in producing the injury. Howes v. Deer & Company, 71 Wis. 2d 268, 273, 238 N.W.2d 76 (1976).”
But that is the very issue that requires application of the enhanced injury doctrine. The question is which injuries were caused by the first impact and which by the second impact. The same inquiry of what harm of plaintiff is being considered was discussed in Clark v. Leisure Vehicles, Inc., 96 Wis. 2d 607, 617-18, 292 N.W.2d 630 (1980), cited by the majority.
The majority states: “We affirm the applicability of the substantial factor test in proving causation.” However, that begs the issue of considering the cause of what harm.
After disavowing Huddell and any rules tailored uniquely for second collision cases (pages 358, 359, supra), the court then states:
“In keeping with the law of this state, we hold that in a ‘second collision’ products liability case, the plaintiff must prove that the defective product was a substantial factor in causing the harm from which damages are claimed. The degree to which the plaintiff will be required to distinguish between the injuries sustained in the ‘first collision’ and those sustained in the ‘second collision’ will be governed by his burden of proving causation via the substantial factor test.”
To do this, the jury must distinguish between injuries due to the first collision and those due to the second *387collision and therefore what plaintiff’s injuries would have been without the defect but with the alternative, safer design. That proof was submitted by plaintiff’s experts in this case. If there is no safer design available or possible, then the products defendant should not be liable. The majority states: “For instance, Toyota’s defective seat system did not cause the accident in this case, and, therefore, Toyota is not liable for injuries caused solely from the ‘first collision.’ ” (Page 359, supra.) That statement admits that the jury will have to decide what injuries were caused by the first collision so that Toyota is not held liable for them. That is a part of the enhanced injury doctrine and why the usual substantial factor test is not sufficient unless the proof is sufficient to allow the jury to distinguish between the injuries sustained with the defect and what would have been sustained with the safer, alternative design or condition of the product.
The majority at p. 361 of the opinion rejects the use of the “over and above” language contained in the jury’s verdict and then devotes pages to analyzing the evidence to see if it was sufficient to sustain a jury answer to a question not asked and that is whether Toyota’s defective seat system was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s quadriplegia.
There is no doubt in this case that a second collision was involved when the plaintiff’s body hit the rear of the front seat as it did after the initial 30 to 50 mile per hour head-on impact against a tree. The experts testified convincingly for the jury that one purpose of the rear of the front seat is to compartmentalize hurtling human bodies which are sitting or lying on the rear seat at the time of the first impact. The design of the front seat, therefore, is not only to support the front seat passenger in normal conditions but also to limit the injuries to all occupants of the car in im*388pact situations. The design must be to control as safely as possible the movement in all directions of passengers in the rear of the automobile in normal and violent circumstances.
The majority states at p. 364 of the opinion that plaintiff suffered inconsequential injuries besides his severed spine. This was testified to by plaintiff’s experts and serves as the basis for the enhanced injury doctrine rejected by the majority. That proof was not necessary, according to the majority, since it agrees with plaintiff’s attorney who stated this was not an enhanced injury case since the seat defect caused plaintiff’s entire injuries. But the trial judge treated the case as one of enhanced injury since he found it reasonable to say that the jury believed that if the seats had been properly engineered, the plaintiff would have sustained practically no injuries. Later on p. 366 of the opinion, the majority returns to its inconsistent position that the defective seat system did not “enhance” plaintiff’s injuries because, but for the defect, “there were no injuries to enhance.”
Toyota relied partially on plaintiff not proving “an alternative, safer design, [was] practicable under the circumstances.” But plaintiff’s experts did testify as to the availability of a desired use of filler between the seats, padding material and stronger metal for the seat hinges all of which are alternative, safer, practicable designs as the jury could accept that proof.
In conclusion, I am disturbed by the majority’s unnecessary treatment of the law of enhanced injuries and its confusing analysis. I would order a new trial as to liability because errors committed during the trial misled the jury as to the evidence of negligence and should have been stricken and the jury told to disregard, because an erroneous instruction was given to the jury, and lastly, because the jury’s answer, finding the plain*389tiff not negligent in regard to his failure to wear a seat belt and his own care and safety, was inconsistent with the facts of this violent accident.