Court Opinion

ID: 9702653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:20:16.565582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:40.303005
License: Public Domain

Morse, J.,
concurring. I agree with Justice Dooley that principles of comparative fault should apply to some products liability claims. We disagree, however, on the basis for comparative fault. Justice Dooley believes we should reverse and remand this case for a third trial because the trial judge failed to instruct the jury on comparative causation. I would reverse because on the facts no reasonable juror could find Bruce Webb less than fifty-one percent responsible for the accident, and thus, under 12 V.S.A. § 1036 (comparative negligence), judgment would have been entered for defendant.
No matter how the claim is labeled, the 402A claim here is essentially a negligence claim that defendant did not design the tractor carefully enough or warn plaintiff reasonably of the dangers. In any products liability design/warning case, ever since the doctrine was first formulated, the plaintiff has been required to prove that the product was negligently designed or negligently warned. Accordingly, it follows that 12 V.S.A. § 1036, our comparative negligence statute, should control. Section 1036 provides in part:
*135Contributory negligence shall not bar recovery in an action by any plaintiff, or his legal representative, to recover damages for negligence resulting in death, personal injury or property damage, if the negligence was not greater than the causal total negligence of the defendant or defendants, but the damage shall be diminished by general verdict in proportion to the amount of negligence attributed to the plaintiff.
(Emphasis added.)
The plain language of the statute indicates that it applies in an action to recover damages for negligence. Because plaintiffs’ defective design/warning claim is a negligence claim, § 1036 must therefore apply. Other courts have similarly applied their comparative negligence statutes to such claims. See, e.g., Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & Machine Co., 406 A.2d 140, 146-47 (N.J. 1979) (because notion of fault is “inherent in the concept of strict liability,” comparative negligence statute is applicable to strict products liability actions); Dippel v. Sciano, 155 N.W.2d 55, 64-65 (Wis. 1967) (strict products liability is negligence per se; therefore, comparative negligence statute applies).
Comparative fault, it seems to me, is the fairest way to resolve the parties’ varying appreciation of the dangerousness of a product. If a product is obviously dangerous in the sense that a reasonable person would consider it dangerous (a bowling ball dropped on one’s foot, for example), there should be no liability. For a defendant to be held liable, the risk should be obscure to the expected user. Graduations in expectations of risk can be reconciled on a case-by-case basis in comparing the unreasonably faulty design and less-than-careful use of a product under the varying circumstances. The doctrine of comparative negligence allows for such flexibility.
If there were such a thing as true “strict liability” whereby a manufacturer is liable for injury no matter how carefully the product is designed and warned for safety, I would agree the comparative negligence statute should not apply. (I have not as yet come across such a cause of action in the product design/warning field). When a product is defective in the sense it did not turn out as it was intended in the manufacturing process, the manufacturer should be strictly liable for proximate resulting harm. But that is not this case.
Under § 1036, recovery is barred if a plaintiff’s total negligence is greater than the negligence of the defendant. Applying § 1036 in this case, I would reverse the jury verdict and enter judgment for *136defendant because the evidence showed as a matter of law that Bruce Webb’s negligence was greater than the negligence of defendant due to defective design or inadequate warnings. Neither the lighting system of the tractor nor the allegedly inadequate warning against use of the field light on a public road was a significant cause of the accident. Rather, Webb failed to maintain the flashing lights, and consequently, could not mind the warning decal on the tractor to “use flashing warning lights at all times on public roads.” Had the flashing lights worked and been turned on as instructed by the warning, the field light would not have operated. Any deficiency in the lighting system of the tractor was exceedingly minor when compared with plaintiff’s failure to keep the flashing lights in working order. Moreover, plaintiff aggravated the situation further by riding on the draw bar and blocking view of the reflective slow-moving-vehicle triangle and the single flashing amber light that may have been working. A reasonable juror would have to conclude that the major fault and cause for the accident was attributable to plaintiff.
Accordingly, I would reverse.