Caiazzo v. Volkswagenwerk A. G.

Citation647 F.2d 241
Decision Date02 April 1981
Docket NumberD,No. 79-7419,No. 969,969,79-7419
PartiesTuri CAIAZZO and Frank Caiazzo, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. VOLKSWAGENWERK A. G., Defendant-Appellant, and Volkswagen of America, Inc., Bruce Beard Volkswagen, Inc. and James Valentine, Defendants. ocket
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

Jay W. Dankner, New York City (David L. Perkins, Lipsig, Sullivan, Mollen & Liapakis, P.C., New York City, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellees.

Michael Hoenig, New York City (Herbert Rubin, Edward L. Birnbaum, Jeffrey L. Chase, Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant.

Before MANSFIELD and NEWMAN, Circuit Judges, and GOETTEL, District Judge. *

GOETTEL, District Judge:

Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft ("VWAG") appeals from a judgment entered against it on May 9, 1979 for damages arising out of an automobile collision between plaintiffs-appellees, Turi and Frank Caiazzo, who were driving a minibus manufactured by appellant, and defendant James Valentine, who has not joined in this appeal. 1

The Caiazzos' claim against VWAG arises out of an area of tort law that has come to be known as the "crashworthiness" or "second collision" doctrine. 2 Under this theory of liability, the claimant does not allege that any defect in the automobile caused the accident; rather, the allegation is that the claimant's injuries were more severe than what they would have been had the car been properly designed. Appellant raises several significant issues connected with this theory of liability. This being a diversity action, we must apply New York law in resolving these issues, Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938), and must join other federal courts in the difficult task of predicting a state court's interpretation in this uncertain area of the law. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse in part the judgment of the district court and remand for a new trial on damages.

I. The Factual Background

On January 17, 1972, Turi Caiazzo, accompanied by her husband, Frank Caiazzo, was driving a 1965 Volkswagen minibus westbound in the center lane of the Long Island Expressway. Neither was wearing the lap seat belt, which was anchored to the floor of the van. Defendant Valentine, proceeding at a speed estimated to be between 50 and 65 miles per hour, crashed into the rear of the Caiazzos' van causing it to turn completely over and reverse direction. The van came to a rest facing east on the right shoulder of the expressway approximately 150 feet west of the point of impact. Both Turi and Frank Caiazzo were ejected from the van and were apparently knocked unconscious. 3 Frank Caiazzo regained consciousness 100 feet west of the van on the shoulder of the expressway. 4 He found Turi on the center lane of the expressway opposite the van. Neither of the Caiazzos has a detailed recollection of the accident.

Turi Caiazzo, who had a life expectancy of about 50 years at the date of trial, suffered a severe cerebral concussion, hematoma over the occipital region of her head, total accident amnesia, a severe fracture of her right shoulder blade, various cuts and scrapes, a myocardial contusion, and fractures to both ankles. (The ankle injuries were the most serious of these injuries.) As a result of these injuries, Turi was confined to a wheelchair for about two months and for some time thereafter had to use crutches. Her ankles are so sensitive that she must avoid anyone's brushing against her foot. In addition, traumatic arthritis in her right ankle has so limited the function of the ankle that she cannot put on pants.

Frank Caiazzo's injuries, although severe, were less extensive than his wife's. He sustained a compression fracture of the first lumbar vertebra and a cerebral concussion. Although his back hurts him occasionally when he plays sports, he made no claim of loss of earnings or for any diminution in earning capacity. His life expectancy at the time of trial was about forty-eight years.

In 1973 the Caiazzos instituted an action against the operator of the other vehicle, Valentine, and against VWAG, the manufacturer of the Caiazzos' van, for aggravation of injuries under a "second collision" theory. See Bolm v. Triumph Corp., 33 N.Y.2d 151, 305 N.E.2d 769, 350 N.Y.S.2d 644 (1973). The Caiazzos alleged that their injuries were aggravated by a defective door latch assembly, which caused the doors to open during the collision, resulting in the occupants' being ejected from the van, and by other defects in the automobile. 5

After a four-week trial, the late Judge Dooling submitted the case to the jury upon twenty-five interrogatories. The jury found, inter alia: (1) that Valentine's negligence was the proximate cause of the accident; (2) that the door handle design was defective; (3) that the Caiazzos were ejected from the van because of the defect; (4) that the Caiazzos' injuries were aggravated beyond the injuries they would have sustained if there had been no defect; (5) that Turi Caiazzo's total damages were $750,000, of which $500,000 (or two-thirds of her total damages) represented the aggravation of her injuries due to defective door handle design; (6) that Frank Caiazzo's total damages were $200,000, of which $150,000 (or three-fourths of his total damages) represented the aggravation of his injuries due to the defective door handle design; and (7) that the Caiazzos' injuries would have been reduced by 25% if they had been wearing seat belts. In sum, the jury concluded that Turi Caiazzo was entitled to recover $562,500 against Valentine and $375,000 of that amount against VWAG jointly. 6 Frank Caiazzo was entitled to recover $150,000 against Valentine, for $112,500 of which VWAG was found jointly liable.

VWAG moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial and renewed its motion for a directed verdict. Judge Dooling denied these motions, but proposed a remittitur of $100,000 with respect to the $200,000 awarded to Frank Caiazzo and $350,000 with respect to the $750,000 awarded to Turi Caiazzo, before the 25% reduction for the Caiazzos' failure to wear seat belts. Caiazzo v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 468 F.Supp. 593 (E.D.N.Y.1979). This resulted in a final judgment for Frank Caiazzo of $75,000 against Valentine, of which $56,250 was against VWAG jointly, and a judgment for Turi Caiazzo of $300,000 against Valentine, of which $200,000 was against VWAG jointly. The Caiazzos accepted the remittitur and judgment was entered on May 5, 1979.

II. The Issues on Appeal

VWAG raises a variety of issues 7 in its appeal: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of enhanced injuries or, in the alternative, whether the evidence necessitated a finding that all of plaintiffs-appellees' injuries would have been mitigated by wearing seat belts; (2) whether the trial court erred in concluding that plaintiffs-appellees did not have the burden of segregating the enhanced injuries from those resulting from the collision; and (3) whether the trial court erred in concluding that plaintiffs-appellees' failure to wear seat belts could not constitute contributory negligence. 8

III. The Legal Background

The second collision doctrine of liability is relatively simple. Since manufacturers are already under a duty to construct vehicles that are free of latent defects, MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916), it follows that the manufacturer's liability for injuries proximately caused by these defects should not be limited to collisions in which the defect causes the accident, but should extend to situations in which the defect caused injuries over and above that which would have occurred from the accident, but for the defective design. Larsen v. General Motors Corp., 391 F.2d 495 (8th Cir. 1968); Bolm v. Triumph Corp., supra.

What appears to be simple in theory, however, presents a myriad of problems in the litigation of this principle. See Foland, Enhanced Injury: Problems of Proof in "Second Collision" and "Crashworthy" Cases, 16 Washburn L.J. 600 (1976). This appeal raises some of the thornier issues: (1) the extent of the plaintiff's burden of proof regarding causation, i. e., to what degree must the plaintiff segregate the enhancement injuries from the primary injuries; (2) the effect of the plaintiff's contributory fault, in particular, the plaintiff's failure to use a seat belt, on the plaintiff's claim that the automobile is defective, where the defendant argues that the "second collision" would not have occurred had seat belts been used; and (3) the interrelation between (1) and (2).

The problem with the litigation of crashworthiness cases generally is that, except for the instance in which the injuries caused by the design defect are clearly distinguishable from those caused by the initial collision (e. g., burn injuries from the explosion of a defectively designed gas tank, as in Turcotte v. Ford Motor Co., 494 F.2d 173 (1st Cir. 1974)), the evidence will necessarily include a determination of what might have happened in the collision under different circumstances. The problem, as the trial court pointed out, is that "(w)hat might have happened is rarely susceptible of proof." Caiazzo v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., supra, 468 F.Supp. at 598.

In this case, the design defect and seat belt issues add considerably to the jury's tasks. Not only must the jury attempt to determine what injuries each plaintiff would have suffered if the doors had not opened, but it must also determine what enhanced injuries each suffered by reason of the doors opening and what part of the enhanced injuries, if any, would have been avoided had they been wearing seat belts. 9

IV. The Trial Court's Approach

The trial court ruled that the Caiazzos need prove only what was referred to as the "fact" of enhancement "that the defect in design was a factor in causing (some of) plaintiffs' injury and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
70 cases
  • Craigie v. General Motors Corp., Civ. A. No. 87-5328 to 87-5332 and 87-5354.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • 8 Junio 1990
    ...followed the majority view of the Third Circuit: Cleveland v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 890 F.2d 1540 (10th Cir.1989); Caiazzo v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 647 F.2d 241 (2d Cir.1981); Stonehocker v. General Motors Corp., 587 F.2d 151 (4th Cir.1978). Crashworthiness remains a new and evolving doctri......
  • Johnson by Johnson v. General Motors Corp., 21611
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 23 Noviembre 1993
    ...... There are two main lines of cases. One line is headed by Mitchell v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 669 F.2d 1199 (8th Cir.1982) and the other is headed by Huddell v. Levin, 537 F.2d 726 (3d Cir.1976). .         In Mitchell, supra, ...Levin, 537 F.2d 726 (3d Cir.1976)); . Garcia v. Rivera, 160 A.D.2d 274, 553 N.Y.S.2d 378 (App.Div. 1st Dep't.1990) (See also Caiazzo v. Volkswagenwerk A.G., 647 F.2d 241 (2d Cir.1981)); . Craigie v. General Motors Corp., 740 F.Supp. 353 (E.D.Pa.1990); . Duran v. General Motors ......
  • Waterson v. General Motors Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 27 Julio 1988
    ...the injured party's recovery should be reduced by the party's own negligence in failing to use a seat belt. See Caiazzo v. Wolkswagenwerk A.G., 647 F.2d 241 (2d Cir.1981); Wilson v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 445 F.Supp. 1368 (E.D.Va.1978); Lowe v. Estate Motors Ltd., supra, 428 Mich. 439......
  • Egbert v. NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD., 20080993.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • 19 Febrero 2010
    ...followed by a minority of states.9 See Huddell v. Levin, 537 F.2d 726 (3d Cir.1976); Caiazzo v. Volkswagenwerk 228 P.3d 744 A.G., 647 F.2d 241 (2d Cir.1981). The Huddell-Caiazzo approach, which Nissan urges us to adopt, reasons that a product seller "is liable only for the enhanced injuries......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Restatement Third, Torts: Products Liability; what hath the ALI wrought?
    • United States
    • Defense Counsel Journal Vol. 64 No. 4, October 1997
    • 1 Octubre 1997
    ...Motors Corp., 391 F.2d 495 (8th Cir. 1968); Huff v. White Motor Co., 565 F.2d 104, 110 (7th Cir. 1977). (40.) Caiazzo v. Volkswagenwerk, 647 F.2d 241, 250-51 (2d Cir. 1981); Curtis v. General Motors Corp., 649 F.2d 808, 813 (10th Cir. 1981); Larson, 391 F.2d at 503; Horn v. General Motors C......
  • The Florida Supreme Court needs a second look at second collision motor vehicle cases.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 78 No. 4, April 2004
    • 1 Abril 2004
    ...interchangeability of the terms crashworthiness, injury enhancement, and second collision. See generally Caiazzo v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 647 F.2d 241, 243 n.2 (2d Cir. 1981); Seese v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 648 F.2d 833,838 n.7 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 867 (3) Baltimore & Ohio ......
  • The minority gets it right: the Florida Supreme Court reinvigorates the crashworthiness doctrine in D'Amario v. Ford.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 78 No. 6, June 2004
    • 1 Junio 2004
    ...See id. at 503 & n.5. (8) See Hudell v. Levin, 537 F.2d 726 (3d Cir. 1976) (applying New Jersey law); Caiazzo v. Volkswagenwerk A.G., 647 F.2d 241 (2d Cir. 1981) (applying New York law); Mitchell v. Volkswagenwerk, 669 F.2d 1199 (8th Cir. 1982) (applying Minnesota (9) See Blankenship v.......
  • The burden of proof conundrum in motor vehicle crashworthiness cases.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 80 No. 2, February 2006
    • 1 Febrero 2006
    ...and second collision, the defendant was stuck with the entire damages harm. A Second Circuit decision, Caiazzo v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 647 F.2d 241 (2d Cir. 1981), analyzing New York law, followed the Third Circuit's position in Huddell. The Caiazzo court held that a plaintiff "should be r......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT