Cheyenne's Negligence Case Study

Upon further review of the evidence in the case, it was explained that Gordon fastened Cheyenne into the seat while she was asleep. This statement seems to eliminate any theory of infants negligence immediately since she was not the one to fasten the seat belt, in addition to her age barring recovery for infants negligence. When placing her into the vehicle he noted that the shoulder portion of the strap fell over her neck and head, allowing for a large amount of slack. Gordon’s direct statement indicates that he knew the seat belt was too large for Cheyenne, however he still placed her in the seat. It is unclear whether Gordon placed the strap behind Cheyenne’s back, or if some time during the ride Cheyenne placed the excess length of belt behind her own back. Since she

was under seven years of age she was not able to foresee any of the consequences that altering the position of the seat belt might have. The court decided that the interpretation of the law concerning product modification is that any party, not just those who bring forth a lawsuit, that modifies the product can count towards the defense of product modification. According to the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Burton, the design of the seat belt that Cody and Cheyenne were using at the time of the accident would, if worn correctly, slow down the user at the same time as the car; reducing the amount of injuries. He believes that, at the time of the accident, the two children were wearing the seat belts correctly and that it wasn’t until the accident that the straps slipped from their shoulders. The enhanced injuries that Cody and Cheyenne suffered were instead the result of the accident itself and the reaction of Cody and Cheyenne’s bodies against the seat belt mechanism. In addition to this he testified that Cheyenne’s paralysis might also be attributed to her small size. Ford’s expert on occupant systems, Dr. Murray Mackay provided evidence that the seat belt had been modified. The injuries that Cheyenne sustained did not support the plaintiff’s testimony that Gordon had placed the seat belt in front of her. The bruises and marks that were recorded appeared in places consistent with the use of a lap belt only. Dr. Mackay’s explanation of the paralysis is that it is a result of the lap belt acting as a fulcrum from which the upper half of her body folded over. Evidence was presented by Ford that indicated the seat belt had been placed behind her back on other occasions, and that Gordon had done the same on the day that Cheyenne was injured. Based on the evidence presented by both sides it can be decided that Ford is liable for an unreasonable design concerning Cheyenne’s seat belt, but not Cody’s. Ford is awarded a summary judgment against Cody’s claim of a design defect and product liability.

This design defect, however, does not mean that the plaintiff is awarded since the design defect was not the proximate cause of injury for Cheyenne. Due to Gordon’s modification of the seat belt, Ford is not liable for the injuries that Cheyenne suffered. Stark ex. rel. Jacobsen v. Ford Motor Co., 365 N.C. 468, 472, 723 S.E.2d 753, 756 (2012). The evidence supports the idea that her spinal cord injury was a direct result of placing the seat belt behind her back. Preemption as a theory that would bar the Starks from recovering does not apply in this case, since the federal government’s regulations do not make manufacturers immune to design defect claims. Stark’s claims of inadequate warnings likewise do not apply since the misuse of the product, it’s alteration, is the proximate cause of injury. Had the modification of the seat belt not been the proximate cause of injury, and instead a contributing factor, the court might have decided that Stark was only twenty percent responsible for the injury that occurred. This amount of contributory negligence would not have barred them from recovering, according to Indiana Statutes, and Ford would have been liable for the

remaining eighty percent of fault. In a similar products liability case involving a tractor the plaintiffs argued that since the tractor lacked an exhaust shield, the product was unreasonably dangerous. The parties in this case argued whether an ordinary consumer would reasonably expect to burn himself/herself simply by coming into contact with the front of the lawnmower. Furthermore the plaintiff argues that there was a design defect and that the design of this particular lawnmower went against the rules that had been established previously, in the national standards for lawnmowers and other power lawn care equipment. A reasonable consumer would expect burns from the exhaust of this product in the rear, but not in the front of the lawnmower. This case also involved an issue of contributory negligence, since they allowed their twelve year old son to drive the lawnmower in an area where other children were playing. The misuse of the product that ensued involved the boy allowing his friend a ride on the lawnmower, which ultimately led to his injury. Infants negligence does not apply in this case, since the boy is over the age of seven, however there is still the issue of proximate cause. Had the parents driven the lawnmower instead of the the son the result would have been the same. A child fell off of his bike near the front of the tractor and burned himself on the front of it. Age was not a factor in this case, likewise alteration did not contribute in any way to the harm suffered. Instead of the manufacturer being relieved of liability due to a superseding alteration, the manufacturer in this case is still liable due to the design defect. Adamany, Midwest Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. Cub Cadet Co rp., MTD Products. Inc., No. 04 C 224 C, 2005 WL 1167913, at *5 (W.D. Wis. May 16, 2005).