Should Vehicle Manufacturers Be Entitled to Apportionment of Liability?

Automobile manufacturers are legally obligated to design, build and sell vehicles that are crashworthy, as in Gaudio v. Ford Motor, 926 A. 2d 524 (Pa. Super. 2009), appeal den., 989 A. 2d 917 (2010). Crashworthiness is the designed protection a vehicle affords occupants against injury or death in a collision, as in Harsh v. Petroll, 840 A.2d 404, 417-418 (Pa. Commwlth 2003). If a motorist or passenger is involved in a collision and she suffers enhanced injuries, the vehicle manufacturer will be liable for those injuries—if the producing harm was caused by a defective design, as in Hutchinson v. Penske Truck Leasing, 876 A. 2d 978 (Pa. Super. 2005), aff’d. 592 Pa. 38 (2007). Before the 2011 amendments to the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, the tortfeasor causing the accident and the tortfeasor-manufacturer whose product enhanced the injuries were jointly and severally liable. Thus, if a jury found the offending driver 80 percent liable and the vehicle’s faulty design 20 percent liable (for the purpose of perfecting a claim for contribution) for the enhanced injury, the victim could recover the full amount of the verdict from either party. However, in 2011, the legislature altered the common law and passed 42 Pa. C. S. 7102 (a.1) and (a.2) to establish several liability based upon jury apportionment of each defendant’s liability, 42 Pa. C. S. 7102 (a.3) allows for joint and several status of a defendant found “not less than 60 percent” liable. The question that has not been addressed in connection with the doctrine of crashworthiness is whether apportionment of liability is appropriate when the plaintiff’s harm is divisible or indivisible? As set forth below, the most logical answer is: no.

The Divisible Injury Issue

The underlying predicate for the duty to build and sell crashworthy vehicles is the responsibility to protect motorists. If the manufacturer can escape liability by apportioning a large percentage of liability to the motorist causing the collision, then that result will virtually eradicate the legal duty imposed upon the manufacturer. Why build a crashworthy vehicle if the manufacturer can simply blame the tortfeasor who caused the collision? Further, if the damages are divisible between the collision-causing tortfeasor and the noncrashworthy manufacturer, why is apportionment warranted? The Comparative Negligence Act requires apportionment when there is a factual predicate showing that more than one tortfeasor was a proximate cause of the total damages suffered. When, however, the damages are divisible because of successive rather than concurrent fault, the need to apportion liability disappears.

The Indivisible Injury Issue