Part 4- Sales, Chapter 20: Product Liability, Doc 5

Summary of Branham v. Ford Motor Co. (South Carolina Supreme Court, 2010) Case Background: Cheryl Hale purchased a 1987 Ford Bronco II, manufactured by Ford, and was driving it in 2001 when she lost control, leading the Bronco to roll over. Jesse Branham, a child passenger, was thrown from the vehicle and sustained serious injuries. Branham’s family filed a lawsuit against Ford, alleging that the Bronco’s design was defective due to its rollover tendency and instability. They presented claims on both negligence and strict liability grounds, asserting that Ford’s design decisions, particularly the choice of suspension, made the vehicle unreasonably dangerous. Ford argued that Hale’s driving, rather than the vehicle’s design, caused the accident and contended that it had adequately addressed the Bronco’s design concerns. Key Legal Issues: 1. Design Defect Claims and Applicable Tests: o The court examined whether Ford’s use of the Twin I-Beam suspension, rather than the more stable MacPherson suspension, made the Bronco unreasonably dangerous due to an elevated center of gravity that increased rollover risks. o Ford argued for the exclusive use of the risk-utility test, requiring proof of a reasonable alternative design, and objected to the consumer expectations test, which evaluates if a product meets ordinary consumer expectations for safety. 2. Post-Distribution Evidence: o The case also considered whether Ford’s actions or knowledge about the Bronco’s rollover tendencies after the vehicle’s distribution could be used to establish a defect or to show Ford’s awareness of the issue. Court’s Findings and Reasoning: 1. Risk-Utility Test Requirement in Design Defect Cases: o The court ruled that the risk-utility test is the appropriate and exclusive standard for evaluating design defect claims in South Carolina, especially in cases of complex products like vehicles. This test requires evidence of a reasonable alternative design that would reduce risks without greatly increasing costs or compromising the vehicle’s utility. o The court determined that the consumer expectations test is less suitable for design defects, as it is more applicable to manufacturing defects where consumer expectations are straightforward. 2. Feasible Alternative Design: Branham presented evidence that Ford’s engineers initially recommended the MacPherson suspension for improved stability, but Ford chose the Twin I-Beam suspension based on marketing strategies that associated the suspension with Ford’s rugged truck image. o Expert testimony indicated that the MacPherson suspension would have enhanced vehicle stability, lowered the center of gravity, and made the Bronco safer without significant cost increases. This testimony provided sufficient grounds for the jury to consider whether Ford’s design choices made the Bronco unreasonably dangerous. 3. Post-Distribution Evidence on Rollover Propensity: o Although the court did not rely on post-distribution evidence to uphold the case’s findings, it acknowledged such evidence could be permissible in future cases to show the manufacturer’s awareness and subsequent actions regarding safety risks. o Court’s Decision:  The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision allowing the jury to consider Branham’s design defect claim based on the risk-utility test and the evidence of an alternative design. The court supported the use of the risk-utility test exclusively in design defect cases going forward, aligning with the Restatement (Third) of Torts and majority legal practices in the U.S. Implications of the Decision:  This decision marked a shift in South Carolina’s product liability law, establishing the risk-utility test as the sole standard in design defect cases. It underscored the importance of presenting feasible alternative designs in product liability cases and set a precedent for South Carolina courts to require evidence that the benefits of a product’s design outweigh its risks.