Force v. Ford Motor Co.

• Decision Date: 06 August 2004
• Docket Number: No. 5D03-1897.,5D03-1897.
• Citation: 879 So.2d 103
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Parties: Francis B. FORCE, etc., et al., Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY and Mazda Motor Corporation, Appellee.

879 So.2d 103

Francis B. FORCE, etc., et al., Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY and Mazda Motor Corporation, Appellee.

No. 5D03-1897.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

August 6, 2004.

Kevin S. Cannon of Clayton & McCulloh, Maitland, and Joel S. Perwin of Joel S. Perwin, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

Wendy F. Lumish, Jeffrey A. Cohen and Cristina Alonso of Carlton Fields, P.A., Miami, for appellees.

MONACO, J.

This is a product-liability case based on an alleged design defect. Francis B. Force, the plenary guardian of the person and property of Mark Francis Force, an incapacitated person, appeals from a final judgment in favor of the appellees, Ford Motor Company and Mazda Motor Corporation. The judgment was rendered by the trial court upon the return of a jury verdict of no liability with respect to a strict liability count that involved an automobile seat restraint system. The seatbelt shoulder restraint on Mark Force's vehicle had purportedly failed during a violent collision. The issue presented to us concerns specifically whether under the circumstances of this case the jury should have been instructed on the consumer-expectation test, as requested by Mr. Force. Because we find that Mr. Force was entitled to have the jury consider his case of this theory, we reverse.

The basic facts are not in serious dispute. Mark Force was operating his Ford Escort when he collided head-on with another vehicle that crossed into his lane while trying to pass. At the time of the collision Mr. Force was wearing his seatbelt and shoulder harness in the manner intended. He sustained a severe head injury as a result.

Mr. Force alleged in his complaint a count for strict liability on the theory that the seatbelt and shoulder restraint system did not lock properly at the time of the impact. More specifically, he asserted that because the lap belt locked as intended, he received no injuries to the lower part of his body. He claimed, however, that the retractor on the shoulder restraint failed to operate properly, that too much of the seat belt unspooled, creating excessive slack in the shoulder restraint, and that his head was seriously injured as a result.

The case proceeded to trial only on the strict liability count. At the charge conference Mr. Force proposed that standard jury instruction PL 5, which is based on section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, be given to the jury verbatim. That instruction, as it applies to the facts of this case, reads as follows:

A product is defective if by reason of its design the product is in a condition unreasonably dangerous to the user and the product is expected to and does reach the user without substantial change affecting that condition.

A product is unreasonably dangerous because of its design if [the product fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used as intended or in a manner reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer] [or] [the risk of danger in the design outweighs the benefits].

The first parenthetical of the second paragraph is known as the consumer-expectation test. The second parenthetical is called the risk-utility test. Mr. Force argued that he was entitled to submit his case to the jury on both theories. Ford and Mazda disagreed.

Ford and Mazda agreed that the second parenthetical proposed by Mr. Force-the risk-utility test-should be part of the jury charge. They argued with respect to the first parenthetical, however, that the consumer-expectation test is either not recognized in Florida, or, alternatively, that it is not applicable to complex design cases such as the seatbelt dispute in the present case. They asked, therefore, that the case be submitted to the jury only on the risk-utility theory. Their reformulation of the risk-utility test, and the instruction eventually given by the trial court, read:

A product is unreasonably dangerous when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design and the failure to use a safer alternative design renders the product unreasonably dangerous.¹

The jury returned a zero verdict. This appeal ensued. Mr. Force seeks reversal because the trial court did not instruct the jury on the consumer-expectation test as expressed in PL-5.

In general terms, trial courts are granted broad discretion to formulate jury instructions, and a decision not to give an instruction requested by one of the parties will not be reversed unless the error complained of resulted in a miscarriage of justice, or unless the "failure to give the instruction was reasonably calculated to confuse or mislead the jury." Hart v. Stern, 824 So.2d 927, 929 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), review denied, 842 So.2d 847 (Fla. 2003); see also Reyka v. Halifax Hosp. Dist., 657 So.2d 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)

. The party who asserts instructional error of this kind must show that: (1) the requested instruction accurately states the law applicable to the facts of the case; (2) the testimony and other evidence presented support the giving of the instruction; and (3) the instruction was necessary to resolve the issues in the case properly. See Foreline Sec. Corp. v. Scott, 871 So.2d 906 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Hart; Reyka; Orange County v. Piper, 523 So.2d 196 (Fla. 5th DCA),

review denied, 531 So.2d 1354 (Fla.1988).

With these precepts in mind, we consider the instruction on the consumer-expectation test requested by Mr. Force. In order to do so, we break this matter into two sub-issues. First, we will consider whether Florida recognizes and embraces the consumer-expectation test for design defects under any circumstances. If so, we will next explore whether Florida courts are to apply the consumer-expectation test to the seatbelt in question.

A. Does Florida Recognize the Consumer-Expectation Test For Design Defects?

In the byzantine world of products liability, there are three basic families of defects that may be the subject of strict product liability: manufacturing defects, design defects, and failures to warn. See E. Wertheimer, Calabresi's Razor: A Short Cut To Responsibility, 28 Stetson L.Rev. 105, 113 (1998). The present case concerns whether the seatbelt restraint system was defectively designed. Under the consumer-expectation theory a product is defectively designed if the plaintiff is able to demonstrate that the product did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in the intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. See Fremaint v. Ford Motor Co., 258 F.Supp.2d 24, 29 (D.P.R.2003)

. Essentially, this test relies on deductive reasoning to conclude that the product is defective. Under the risk-utility theory a product is defectively designed if the plaintiff proves that the design of the product proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries and the defendant fails to prove that on balance, the benefits of the design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in the design. Id. Both parties agree that the risk-utility standard (or, as it sometimes called, the risk-benefit standard), is applicable to the present dispute.

At the time that jury instruction PL-5 was adopted in 1983, the Committee Notes reflect uncertainty with respect to whether either or both of the consumer-expectation and risk-utility tests should be given, because the Florida Supreme Court had not specifically addressed the issue. As a result, the Committee defined "unreasonably dangerous" under both tests, but put brackets around each definition, and included the following comment:

Absent more definitive authority in Florida, the committee recommends neither test to the exclusion of the other and expresses no opinion about whether the two charges should be given alternatively or together. PL 5 provides language suitable for either standard, or both determined by the trial court to be appropriate.

Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Civil Cases) PL 5, Note on use, cmt 5. The Supreme Court commented on the instruction in similar fashion at the time it was adopted, saying that: "[W]e emphasize that we are not deciding any question of law or correctness or applicability of the charge in any particular case. This is the responsibility of the trial judge and will depend on further development of the law on a case by case basis." See In Re Standard Jury Instr., 435 So.2d 782, 783 (Fla.1983)

. Since then, as Ford and Mazda candidly acknowledge, the question has remained washed in uncertainty. A number of cases, however, are guideposts.

Light v. Weldarc Co., Inc., 569 So.2d 1302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), was a product liability suit involving a pair of safety glasses that did not prevent a sliver of metal discharged from a power punch press from breaking through an eyepiece and partially blinding the plaintiff. The specific issue addressed by this court in that case was whether summary judgment for the manufacturer was properly entered. In discussing the strict liability count of the complaint, however, this court, citing section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, noted that, "The issue to be resolved is whether the product, at the time it left the seller's hands, is in a condition not contemplated by the consumer, which condition is unreasonably dangerous to the consumer." Thus, while the case did not turn on this point, it appears that this court recognized the applicability of the consumer-expectation test.

Cassisi v. Maytag Co., 396 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), another summary judgment case, is also helpful. In the final analysis, the court there concluded that the flaw being considered was a manufacturing defect, and not a design defect, and that the consumer-expectation test was applicable in determining liability. It did note in dicta, however, that while the consumer-expectation standard is adequate to identify unintended manufactured defects, it is "more difficult to apply" to design defect cases. Id. at 1145. Nonetheless, the court did...