Donze v. GM, LLC - 420 S.C. 8, 800 S.E.2d 479 (2017)

Rule:

Regardless of the theory under which a plaintiff chooses to bring a crashworthiness claim, the heart of the crashworthiness doctrine remains the same--manufacturer liability for enhanced injuries following a foreseeable collision. Thus, any negligence by the plaintiff or another defendant which may have contributed to the initial collision is entirely irrelevant. Therefore, the South Carolina Supreme Court adopt the rationale established by the federal district court in Jimenez v. Chrysler Corp., and holds that comparative negligence does not apply to permit the negligence of another party--whether the plaintiff or another defendant--in causing an initial collision to reduce the liability of a manufacturer for enhanced injuries in a crashworthiness case.

Facts:

Plaintiff Reid Harold Donze and his friend, Allen Brazell, were driving in plaintiff’s 1987 Chevrolet pickup truck. There was evidence indicating that plaintiff and Brazell had been smoking synthetic marijuana earlier that morning. While Brazell was driving, they came to an intersection controlled by a stop sign. Brazell failed to stop and pulled directly in front of a Ford F-350 truck towing a horse trailer. Unable to stop, the Ford struck plaintiff’s truck on the driver's side, and the truck burst into flames. Brazell died as a result of the fire, and plaintiff suffered severe burns to eighty percent of his body. Plaintiff filed the present crashworthiness action against defendant General Motors, alleging a defect in the truck's design—specifically, the placement of the gas tank outside of the truck's frame—caused the fire, and seeking damages only for his enhanced burn injuries. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment arguing plaintiff should be barred from recovery pursuant to South Carolina's public policy against driving while impaired. In the alternative, defendant asserted comparative negligence should apply to limit plaintiff's recovery. The district court denied the defendant’s motion. The court certified two questions to the state supreme court. 

Issue:

1.  Did the defense of comparative negligence apply in crashworthiness cases? 
2.  Did South Carolina’s public policy bar a plaintiff, allegedly intoxicated at the time of the accident, from bringing a crashworthiness claim against the vehicle manufacturer?

Answer:

1) No. 2) No.

Conclusion:

The court held that the defense of comparative negligence did not apply in crashworthiness cases against vehicle manufacturers brought under strict liability and breach of warranty theories because under the crashworthiness doctrine, any negligence by the plaintiff or another defendant which may have contributed to the initial collision was entirely irrelevant. The court further held that South Carolina's public policy did not bar a plaintiff who was allegedly intoxicated at the time of the accident from bringing a crashworthiness claim against the vehicle manufacturer because barring intoxicated plaintiffs from bringing strict liability or breach of warranty actions would add an impaired plaintiff exception to these statutory causes of action, which exceeded the supreme court's authority.