We here at Abnormal Use have blogged about a few cases involving the Crashworthiness Doctrine, otherwise known as enhanced injury cases. As we have discussed before, the theory is that although a plaintiff might have suffered a finite number of injuries and damages because of an initial accident or occurrence, his injuries are exacerbated, or he suffers additional injuries, because of some product defect. More recently, we discussed the concept of comparative fault as it pertains to these cases in the context of a Montana Supreme Court decision. Read our prior post here.
This week, we were alerted by fellow blawg The Product Liability Monitor to a fight that has been occurring in Florida over this doctrine, which started when the Florida Supreme Court issued its decision in D’Amario v. Ford Motor Co., 806. So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2001) [PDF]. Like the Montana case, the dispute centers on this idea of comparative fault. A prior post by The Product Liability Monitor summarized the facts and procedural posture of D’Amario as follows:
In D’Amario, the plaintiff was riding in a 1998 Ford Escort when it crashed into a tree. After hitting the tree, the car burst into flames. While the driver – who was intoxicated at the time – was killed, the plaintiff survived but suffered serious injuries. Subsequent to the crash, the passenger’s mother sued on behalf of her son, alleging that the car’s relay switch failed to disengage the fuel pump on impact. This, she alleged, caused the post-collision fire and the injuries to her son. At trial, the jury was permitted to consider evidence of the driver’s negligence and thus, the issue of comparative fault. In doing so, it found for the defendant car manufacturer. Id. at 428. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court reversed. That court held that while the principles of comparative fault may apply to the causes of the first collision, they do not apply in crashworthiness cases where the sole focus is on the secondary injury. Id. at 441-42.
Well, the Florida legislature didn’t find that to be a wise holding. In fact, the Florida Senate introduced a bill that would entitle “judges and juries . . . to hear and consider evidence of fault relating to the cause of the initial accident when apportioning fault for injuries caused by a subsequent or secondary accident.”
Well, as reported by The Product Liability Monitor, D’Amario will now be given a neat little red flag in your next Westlaw search, because the Florida legislature has passed that bill. The real kick in the teeth to plaintiffs? The law applies retroactively to pending cases.