Products Liability Law Reporter

A Washington appellate court held that a Jeep manufacturer was not liable to a driver injured in a collision absent evidence a vehicle defect had caused the incident.

Aaron Woodward purchased a 2020 Jeep Gladiator, which had no collision history, mechanical problems, alterations, or previous maintenance. Several months later, while driving from Seattle to Portland, Ore., multiple warning lights lit up on the Jeep’s dashboard, including one for the anti-lock brake system (ABS). The next day, while en route to a car dealership in rainy conditions, he approached a red light and applied his brakes but collided with a car traveling through the intersection. Woodward suffered back injuries in the crash.

He filed suit against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, N.V. and related entities, as well as The Robert Larsen Automotive Group, Inc., which sold the Jeep. The plaintiff claimed that the Jeep’s right wheel speed sensor was not working, causing the vehicle’s ABS to become disabled and extending the vehicle’s stopping distance. Had the braking system been working properly, the plaintiff argued, he could have stopped the Jeep in time to avoid the collision. Alternatively, he asserted, the speed of the impact would have been reduced, resulting in less significant injuries.

The plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on liability, and the defense also filed a summary judgment motion. To support his motion, the plaintiff submitted a report from consulting engineer David Hallman, who reviewed crash data from the Jeep and concluded that an issue with the vehicle’s right wheel speed sensor signal had caused the ABS to become disabled. Hallman stated that the Jeep’s front wheels would not have skidded had the ABS been functional. In response, the defense submitted the deposition transcript of Hallman, who stated that the Jeep’s brakes had engaged before the collision but could not say whether Woodward could have stopped in time to avoid the collision had the ABS system been operational. Hallman also testified that he did not have an opinion as to what caused the collision and did not express an opinion regarding whether the Jeep’s brakes were to blame.

Additionally, the defense submitted information regarding three inspections of the Jeep following the accident, including a report stating that the brake system was working as expected and no system malfunction had been detected. Woodward, in response, submitted a declaration that he had applied the brakes more than 1.2 seconds before the impact and that the crash data showed he was traveling 35 mph five seconds before impact and 31 mph a second before impact, proving that the brakes had not worked when applied.

The trial court denied the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion and later granted the defense motion. The plaintiff appealed.

Affirming, the appellate court noted that the Washington Product Liability Act, Wash. Rev. Code §7.72, provides the exclusive remedy for products liability claims in the state. The act imposes strict liability on the manufacturer of a defective product if the defect resulted in harm, the court said, noting that a claimant must prove his or her harm was proximately caused by the fact that the product was not reasonably safe in construction. The court said that the trier of fact must consider whether the product was unsafe to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s contention that a genuine issue of material fact existed demonstrating that the Jeep’s braking system was defective and caused his injuries. There was insufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the alleged speed sensor defect was a proximate cause of the collision, as required by the products liability act, the court said. Hallman, the court noted, did not have an opinion as to what the stopping distance would have been and whether the plaintiff could have stopped before the collision had the ABS been operational. Moreover, the court said that Hallman never expressed an opinion that the incident resulted from the Jeep’s brakes. Therefore, the court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to present a question of fact regarding causation and the disabled ABS.

Turning to the plaintiff’s argument on the Jeep’s alleged brake failure, the court found that the plaintiff’s testimony that he had applied the brakes five seconds before the collision but failed to come to a stop is inconsistent with the crash data, which showed that the brakes were not applied until 1.2 seconds before the collision. The court said that even if it were to assume the truth of the plaintiff’s statement that the Jeep’s brakes had failed to engage, the plaintiff still did not present any evidence showing that the alleged brake failure resulted from a manufacturing defect. The undisputed evidence showed that the defective speed sensor would not have caused a brake failure, the court found, concluding that the plaintiff had therefore failed to create a question of fact regarding whether there was a defect in the manufacture of the Jeep that led to the alleged brake failure.

Citation: Woodward v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, N.V., 2022 WL 16758565 (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 8, 2022).