The Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated a $1 billion jury verdict in favor of a plaintiff who alleged injuries arising out of a 2017 car accident. The case centered on alleged defects in a 1992 sports car’s occupant restraint system and roof design. The analysis from the Superior Court, while non-precedential, offers crucial insights into Pennsylvania’s product liability law particularly with regard to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s landmark Tincher opinion.
The Plaintiff was rendered quadriplegic after a rollover accident and sued the Defendant automaker and other parties. The Plaintiff did not claim that any defect caused the accident itself. Rather, he argued that design defects in the seat belt (specifically, a “rip-stitch” that added slack in a crash) and insufficient head clearance exacerbated his injuries during the crash. After a lengthy trial, the jury awarded the Plaintiff and his spouse over $156 million in compensatory damages and $800 million in punitive damages.
At trial, the Defendant argued that, because the Plaintiff’s claims were classic “crashworthiness” allegations (that is, claims that a defect enhanced injuries in an accident, rather than caused the accident itself), the jury needed to be instructed on the heightened proof requirements of the crashworthiness doctrine. The Plaintiff argued that the trial court should use standard strict liability instructions, based on the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 402A, and Pennsylvania’s suggested jury instructions.
The crashworthiness doctrine is a subset of Section 402A, applicable when a defect did not cause the accident, but increased the severity of injury. The doctrine imposes a more rigorous burden of proof than traditional Section 402A claims, including the need to distinguish between compensable “enhanced” injuries and those that would have occurred anyway. Despite this, the trial court declined to instruct the jury on the crashworthiness doctrine, instead giving only the standard Section 402A instructions.
On appeal, the parties disputed the manner in which the jury should have been instructed regarding the applicable legal standard. The automaker defendant reiterated its argument that the jury should have been instructed on the enhanced crashworthiness requirements of 402A. The Plaintiff argued on appeal that Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc. (Pa. 2014)permitted the use of traditional Section 402A instructions in all design defect cases.
The Superior Court found that the Plaintiff’s claims were indisputably crashworthiness claims: he never alleged that a defect caused the accident, only that defects enhanced his injuries. Both parties’ experts focused on whether a safer alternative design would have prevented or reduced the Plaintiff’s injuries, and whether the alleged defects caused enhanced harm. The Superior Court held this was reversible error, echoing its prior decision in Colville v. Crown Equipment Corp.
(Pa. Super. 2001) and emphasizing that crashworthiness instructions are mandatory when the facts fit that doctrine.
The court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that Tincher permitted the use of traditional Section 402A instructions in all design defect cases, clarifying that Tincher did not eliminate the crashworthiness doctrine or its unique proof requirements. The Superior Court noted that Tincher reaffirmed that Plaintiffs in design defect cases may proceed under either the “consumer expectation” or “risk-utility” test but did not abrogate the crashworthiness doctrine. Tincher clarified how to prove a design defect but did not alter the requirement that crashworthiness claims must meet their own heightened standards.
This decision is a reminder that in Pennsylvania, the path to strict liability recovery for enhanced injuries claims is not the same as for other product defect claims. The crashworthiness doctrine imposes additional, rigorous requirements, and courts must ensure juries are clearly instructed on these standards. The case has been remanded for a new trial, erasing the prior billion-dollar verdict and underscoring the importance of precision in product liability litigation.
For further reading, see the Superior Court’s memorandum opinion in Amagasu et al. v. Mitsubishi Motors North America, No. 1594 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Ct.).