Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantdamagestrialburden of proof
plaintiffdefendantdamagesappealsummary judgmentburden of proof

Related Cases

Hill v. Skinner, 81 Ohio App. 375, 79 N.E.2d 787, 37 O.O. 213
View Case »
Johnson v. Superior Court, 143 Cal.App.4th 297, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 52, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9098, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,014
View Case »
Adkins v. Brett, 184 Cal. 252, 193 P. 251
View Case »
Blackwell v. Hurst, 46 Cal.App.4th 939, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 209, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4600, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7246
View Case »
Miller v. TGI Friday’s, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 723426
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Trull v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 145 N.H. 259, 761 A.2d 477, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 15,915

Facts

In February 1991, David and Elizabeth Trull and their two sons were traveling in New Hampshire when their Volkswagen Vanagon slid on black ice and collided with an oncoming car. The two sons were seated in the rear middle bench seat, which had lap-only seatbelts. Benjamin died in the accident, and both Elizabeth and Nathaniel suffered severe brain injuries. The plaintiffs claimed that defects in the Vanagon's design made their injuries more severe than they otherwise would have been.

In February 1991, the plaintiffs, David and Elizabeth Trull, and their two sons, Nathaniel and Benjamin, were traveling in New Hampshire when their Volkswagen Vanagon slid on black ice and collided with an oncoming car. Both parties agree that Nathaniel and Benjamin were seated in the rear middle bench seat of the Vanagon, which was equipped with lap-only seatbelts, and were wearing the available lap belts. Benjamin died in the accident, and both Elizabeth and Nathaniel suffered severe brain injuries.

Issue

Under New Hampshire law, in a crashworthiness or enhanced injury case, does the plaintiff bear the burden of demonstrating the specific nature and extent of the injuries attributable to the manufacturer, or does the burden of apportionment fall on the defendant once the plaintiff has proved causation?

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge) has certified the following question of law, see Sup.Ct. R. 34: 'Under New Hampshire law, in a crashworthiness or enhanced injury case, does the plaintiff bear the burden of demonstrating the specific nature and extent of the injuries attributable to the manufacturer, or does the burden of apportionment fall on the defendant once the plaintiff has proved causation?'

Rule

In crashworthiness cases involving indivisible injuries, plaintiffs must prove that a design defect was a substantial factor in producing damages over and above those which were probably caused as a result of the original impact or collision; once plaintiffs make that showing, the burden shifts to defendants to show which injuries were attributable to the initial collision and which to the defect.

In crashworthiness cases involving indivisible injuries, we conclude that the plaintiffs must prove that a 'design defect was a substantial factor in producing damages over and above those which were probably caused as a result of the original impact or collision. Once the plaintiff[s] make [ ] that showing, the burden shifts to the defendant[s] to show which injuries were attributable to the initial collision and which to the defect.'

Analysis

The court analyzed the burden of proof in crashworthiness cases, determining that when injuries are separate and divisible, the burden remains on the plaintiff to prove enhancement. However, in cases of indivisible injuries, the plaintiffs must show that the design defect was a substantial factor in causing additional damages, after which the burden shifts to the defendants to apportion the damages.

The court analyzed the burden of proof in crashworthiness cases, determining that when injuries are separate and divisible, the burden remains on the plaintiff to prove enhancement. However, in cases of indivisible injuries, the plaintiffs must show that the design defect was a substantial factor in causing additional damages, after which the burden shifts to the defendants to apportion the damages.

Conclusion

The court concluded that the defendants bear the burden of apportionment once the plaintiffs prove causation. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

The court concluded that the defendants bear the burden of apportionment once the plaintiffs prove causation. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

Who won?

The defendants prevailed in the initial trial, as the jury found in their favor on the estate's claim. The court's reasoning was based on the plaintiffs' failure to meet the burden of proof regarding the nature and extent of the enhanced injuries.

The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire granted summary judgment for the defendants on a breach of warranty claim, and both Elizabeth and David Trull's claims were dismissed with prejudice.

You must be