Products Liability Law Reporter

Doe was a passenger in a 1998 Infiniti QX4 manufactured by Nissan Motor Co. Another vehicle crossed into the QX4’s path, causing a collision at 10 mph. The QX4’s air bag deployed violently, striking Doe’s left eye and causing her to lose vision in the eye.

Doe sued Nissan North America, Inc., and Nissan Motor Co, Ltd., alleging that the QX4’s passenger air bag system was unreasonably dangerous and defective under the Alabama extended manufacturer’s liability doctrine. The plaintiff asserted that alternative air bag designs were available, which would have prevented her injuries in the crash.

The jury awarded $8.5 million.

Citation: Henderson-Brundidge v. Nissan North Am., Inc., No. 02-CV-202-901869.00 (Ala. Cir. Ct. Mobile Cnty. 2023).

Plaintiff counsel: Evan Allen, Mobile, Ala.; and Kendall Dunson and Mike Andrews, both of Montgomery, Ala.

Comment: In Munoz v. FCA US LLC, 2023 WL 3746540 (10th Cir. June 1, 2023), Roy Munoz was operating a 2012 Ram 1500 when he struck two elk at highway speed. The truck’s air bags failed to deploy, and Munoz suffered serious injury. He sued Fiat Chrysler Automobiles US LLC, alleging claims for defective manufacturing and breach of warranty. The district court granted summary judgment for the defense, holding that the plaintiff failed to provide expert testimony establishing the presence of a defect and causation. The plaintiff appealed and moved for certification to the state supreme court. Affirming, the Tenth Circuit found that the plaintiff offered no evidence disputing the declaration of the defendant’s electrical engineer, who explained how the truck’s air bags and seat belts operated. The plaintiff also failed to offer evidence disputing the defendant’s declaration from another engineer, who determined, after examining the plaintiff’s truck, that its air bag system and seat belt pretensioners had all been functioning properly. Expert evidence was required to establish a defect, the court held, adding that the truck’s occupant restraint system was highly technical. The plaintiff’s expert report, submitted by a crashworthiness expert who inspected the truck, offered no opinion as to whether the plaintiff suffered more significant injuries than he would have had the air bags and seat belt pretensioners deployed, the court said.

See also Stoddard v. Subaru of Am., Inc., 2023 WL 6381505 (D. Md. Sept. 28, 2023). There, Jeffrey Stoddard sued Subaru of America, Inc.; Subaru Corp.; Subaru of Indiana Automotive, Inc.; and the Hertz Corp., seeking to recover damages for injuries he sustained to his left hand after the deployment of air bags in a Subaru Outback he rented from Hertz. The plaintiff asserted that the Subaru defendants were negligent in the design or manufacture of the air bag system and for failing to warn him of the risks posed by the air bag system. Suit also claimed that the Subaru defendants had engaged in unfair or deceptive trade practices in violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. The Subaru defendants moved for summary judgment. Granting the motion, the district court concluded that without any identifiable defect, there is no genuine dispute of material fact that the Subaru defendants had no duty to warn Stoddard about a defective condition. Also, the court found, there was no genuine dispute of material fact that Stoddard did not substantially rely on any misrepresentation or omission of material fact by the Subaru defendants.