Bolm v. Triumph Corp., 33 N.Y.2d 151 (1973)
A manufacturer can be held liable for injuries exacerbated by a latent design defect, even if that defect did not cause the initial accident.
Summary
David Bolm sustained severe injuries, including sterility, when his motorcycle collided with a car. He sued Triumph, the motorcycle’s distributor and manufacturer, alleging that the placement of a metal luggage rack (parcel grid) on the gas tank was a negligent design defect that enhanced his injuries upon impact. The lower courts initially granted summary judgment to Triumph based on the “second collision rule,” which limited liability to defects causing the accident. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that manufacturers have a duty to avoid latent design defects that foreseeably increase injury during an accident, even if the defect did not cause the accident itself. The question of whether the defect was latent or patent is a factual one for the jury.
Facts
David Bolm was seriously injured when his Triumph motorcycle collided with a car that negligently turned into his lane. Upon impact, he was thrown forward and came into contact with a metal luggage rack (“parcel grid”) affixed to the top of the motorcycle’s gas tank. This contact allegedly caused severe pelvic and genital injuries, resulting in sterility.
Procedural History
Bolm sued Triumph, the motorcycle distributor and manufacturer, alleging negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability in tort. The Special Term granted summary judgment to Triumph, citing precedent that limited manufacturer liability to defects causing the accident. The Appellate Division reversed, finding that injuries resulting from a latent design defect creating a foreseeable risk are actionable, even if the defect did not cause the initial accident. The case was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals by permission of the Appellate Division.
Issue(s)
Whether a manufacturer of motor vehicles can be held liable for design defects that do not cause accidents but do enhance or aggravate injuries.
Holding
Yes, because a manufacturer has a duty to avoid latent design defects that foreseeably increase injury during an accident, even if the defect did not cause the accident itself. The extent of the assumption of risk in operating a motor vehicle should not extend beyond injuries resulting from impacts in a reasonably designed and constructed vehicle.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals rejected the “second collision rule,” which shielded manufacturers from liability for design defects that aggravated injuries but did not cause the initial accident. The court distinguished its prior holding in Campo v. Scofield, clarifying that while manufacturers need not create accident-proof products, they must avoid latent dangers in normal product use. The court found that a collision is a foreseeable event in the intended use of a motor vehicle. The Court adopted the reasoning in Larsen v. General Motors Corp., stating that “Where the manufacturer’s negligence in design causes an unreasonable risk to be imposed upon the user of its products, the manufacturer should be liable for the injury caused by its failure to exercise reasonable care in the design.” The court emphasized that “[m]anufacturers are not insurers but should be held to a standard of reasonable care in design to provide a reasonably safe vehicle in which to travel.” The court also found that the issue of whether the defect was latent or patent is a question of fact for the jury. Quoting Palsgraf v. Long Is. R. R. Co., the court stated, “The range of reasonable apprehension is at times a question for the court, and at times, if varying inferences are possible, a question for the jury.”