Overview
Once signed into law, Senate Bill 142 will overturn a controversial 2001 Florida Supreme Court ruling that altered Florida's product liability litigation by defining how motor vehicle crashworthiness cases are to be tried. According to the bill, a crashworthiness case concerns "an action alleging that injuries received by a claimant in an accident were greater than the injuries the claimant would have received but for a defective product." Such deficiencies are said to cause "enhanced injuries." Other products involved in crashes, such as motorcycle helmets, may be subject to the same concept.
Under the bill defendants in such actions can present evidence relating to the fault of any person who may have contributed to the underlying accident. Juries are to consider such evidence and may attribute fault to such persons.
The bill would overturn an earlier decision of the Florida Supreme Court stating that principles of comparative fault concerning apportionment of fault as to the cause the underlying accident would not apply in enhanced injury cases. Apportionment of liability becomes a critical issue, in light of the many parties that could face allegations of negligence in crashes.
Background
In a controversial 2001 ruling [D'Amario v. Ford, 806 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2001)], the Florida Supreme Court decided that juries could not hear evidence describing events leading up to accidents involving enhanced injuries. Thus, juries could not consider all facts that could potentially be the basis for findings of fault, such as a person driving drunk. A manufacturer, on the other hand, could be held liable if its product incorporated in the vehicle is deemed responsible for enhanced injuries.
Several auto manufacturers fought the D'Amario ruling, arguing that juries sophisticated enough to decide cases involving capital offenses should be able to hear all the facts concerning a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiffs' bar, which supports the high court's ruling, countered that hearing evidence surrounding the initial circumstances in an accident would unnecessarily bias a jury weighing liability for enhanced injuries.
The Legislation
The bill specifically reverses the D'Amario decision, altering Florida's crashworthiness doctrine. Florida is among a handful of states that consider a crash – and any fault of the driver in that crash – unrelated and irrelevant to injuries caused by defective parts or design. The new law would eliminate the separation of the elements of causation and crashworthiness of the vehicle or product and allow juries to hear full details of the events leading up to the liability claim.
The passed bill is retroactive, meaning it would apply to pending cases, and would give businesses some lawsuit protections they were denied by the 2001 Supreme Court ruling. That decision made product defendants, including automakers, liable for damages in the case of a defective part, regardless of a driver's behavior. Backers of the bill say the measure would allow the closing of a loophole that is costing the auto industry millions in damages.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
