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

lawsuittortplaintiffnegligenceliabilityverdictmotionsummary judgmentcomparative negligence
lawsuittortplaintiffdamagesnegligenceliabilityverdictstrict liabilitycomparative negligence

Related Cases

Dobrovolny v. Ford Motor Co., 281 Neb. 86, 793 N.W.2d 445
View Case »
Cadena v. Chicago Fireworks Mfg. Co., 297 Ill.App.3d 945, 697 N.E.2d 802, 232 Ill.Dec. 60
View Case »
Home Ins. Co. v. Spears, 267 Ark. 704, 590 S.W.2d 71
View Case »
Rodgers v. Kemper Constr. Co., 50 Cal.App.3d 608, 124 Cal.Rptr. 143
View Case »
Willis v. Omar, 954 A.2d 126
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Wickersham v. Ford Motor Company, 432 S.C. 384, 853 S.E.2d 329, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 21,015

Facts

John Harley Wickersham Jr. was seriously injured in an automobile accident involving his Ford Escape. Following months of severe pain from his injuries, he committed suicide. His widow filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Ford, claiming that defects in the airbag system enhanced his injuries and led to his suicide. The case was removed to federal court, where the district court denied Ford's motions for summary judgment and ruled that the widow could prevail if she proved that the defective airbag caused severe pain that led to an uncontrollable impulse to commit suicide. The jury found in favor of the widow, attributing some fault to Wickersham for being out of position during the accident.

John Harley Wickersham Jr. was seriously injured in an automobile accident. After months of severe pain from the injuries he received in the accident, he committed suicide. His widow filed lawsuits for wrongful death, survival, and loss of consortium against Ford Motor Company in state circuit court. She alleged that defects in the airbag system in Mr. Wickersham's Ford Escape enhanced his injuries, increasing the severity of his pain, which in turn proximately caused his suicide.

Issue

Does South Carolina recognize an 'uncontrollable impulse' exception to the general rule that suicide breaks the causal chain for wrongful death claims, and does comparative negligence apply in a crashworthiness case when the plaintiff's actions are non-tortious?

1. Does South Carolina recognize an 'uncontrollable impulse' exception to the general rule that suicide breaks the causal chain for wrongful death claims? If so, what is the plaintiff required to prove is foreseeable to satisfy causation under this exception—any injury, the uncontrollable impulse, or the suicide? 2. Does comparative negligence in causing enhanced injuries apply in a crashworthiness case when the plaintiff alleges claims of strict liability and breach of warranty and is seeking damages related only to the plaintiff's enhanced injuries?

Rule

Traditional principles of proximate cause govern wrongful death claims from suicide, and comparative negligence does not apply to a plaintiff's non-tortious actions that enhance injuries in a crashworthiness case.

South Carolina does not recognize a general rule that suicide is an intervening act that always breaks the chain of causation in a wrongful death action. Rather, our courts apply traditional principles of proximate cause.

Analysis

The court applied traditional proximate cause principles to determine whether Wickersham's suicide was a foreseeable consequence of Ford's alleged negligence. It ruled that the jury could consider whether the defective airbag caused Wickersham's enhanced injuries and subsequent suicide. The court clarified that while Wickersham's actions contributed to the enhancement of his injuries, they did not constitute a legal cause that would reduce Ford's liability for the enhanced injuries.

In this case, the Fourth Circuit asks a different question. We are now asked whether comparative negligence—which is normally thought of as a defense—applies in a strict liability or breach of warranty case when the plaintiff's conduct (1) is not tortious conduct and is not misuse; and (2) relates only to the enhancement of the injuries, not to the cause of the accident. As asked, the answer is 'no.'

Conclusion

The court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of Mrs. Wickersham, holding that traditional proximate cause principles apply to wrongful death claims from suicide and that comparative negligence does not apply to non-tortious actions that enhance injuries.

The court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of Mrs. Wickersham, holding that traditional proximate cause principles apply to wrongful death claims from suicide and that comparative negligence does not apply to non-tortious actions that enhance injuries.

Who won?

Mrs. Wickersham prevailed in the case because the jury found that the defective airbag proximately caused her husband's enhanced injuries and suicide, despite attributing some fault to him for being out of position.

The jury returned a verdict for Mrs. Wickersham on all claims. The jury found the airbag was defective and proximately caused Mr. Wickersham's enhanced injuries and suicide.

You must be