Reis v. Volvo Cars of North America, 25 N.Y.3d 36 (2015)
In a product design defect case, the standard of care is whether a reasonable person would conclude that the utility of the product’s design outweighed the risk inherent in marketing it, not whether the manufacturer used the same degree of skill and care as others in the industry.
Summary
Americo Silva’s 1987 Volvo lurched forward when he started the engine while it was in gear, pinning plaintiff Reis against a wall and causing severe injury. Reis sued Volvo, alleging negligent design for failing to include a starter interlock. The trial court erroneously instructed the jury using a malpractice standard of care (PJI 2:15). The jury found Volvo negligent but not liable for a design defect, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the malpractice standard was inappropriate for a design defect case and the error likely influenced the inconsistent verdict.
Facts
Americo Silva was showing the plaintiff, Reis, his recently purchased 1987 Volvo station wagon. Silva started the car while it was in gear, causing it to lurch forward and severely injure Reis. The car lacked a starter interlock, a safety device that prevents the car from starting while in gear. Plaintiff contended that the absence of this interlock constituted a design defect. Plaintiff presented evidence that other manufacturers such as General Motors, Ford and Toyota included starter interlocks in their 1987 models. Volvo argued that the risk of such an accident was minimal and the interlock had potential disadvantages.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court denied Volvo’s motion for summary judgment. The case proceeded to trial while Volvo’s appeal was pending. The jury found Volvo negligent but not liable for a design defect and awarded the plaintiff damages. The Appellate Division dismissed the failure to warn claims but otherwise affirmed. Volvo appealed to the Court of Appeals as of right.
Issue(s)
- Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury using PJI 2:15, the standard of care instruction for malpractice cases, in a product design defect case.
- Whether the trial court properly instructed the jury using PJI 2:16, regarding customary business practices.
Holding
- Yes, because the standard of care applicable to malpractice cases is different from the standard in negligence cases, including design defect cases.
- Yes, because there was sufficient evidence to permit the jury to consider industry custom and practice, without mandating that they find Volvo negligent based solely on that evidence.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that PJI 2:15, designed for malpractice cases, was improperly applied. The Court explained that in malpractice cases, the standard is the level of skill and care used by others in the same profession. In contrast, negligence cases require comparing the defendant’s conduct to that of a reasonable person under like circumstances. In negligent design/design defect cases, the specific question is “whether the product is one as to which if the design defect were known at the time of manufacture, a reasonable person would conclude that the utility of the product did not outweigh the risk inherent in marketing a product designed in that manner” (quoting Voss v Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 NY2d 102, 108 [1983]). The Court noted the jury’s inconsistent verdict, finding Volvo negligent but not liable for a design defect, suggested the erroneous charge confused the jury. The Court affirmed the appropriateness of PJI 2:16, which allows the jury to consider industry custom and practice as evidence of reasonable conduct, but does not mandate a finding of negligence based solely on that evidence. The Court quoted the instruction: “a general custom, use or practice by those in the same business or trade may be considered some evidence of what constitutes reasonable conduct in that trade or business.”