98 N.E.3d 83
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- W & W Transport purchased a PACCAR (Peterbilt) "glider kit" (cab, chassis, wiring, partial brakes/steering) and installed a salvaged engine/transmission to build a semi-tractor. The kit lacked certain features (rear window optional, no backup alarm standard, no rearview camera option compatible with the salvaged engine, no backup warning labels).
- While backing the assembled tractor (no trailer attached), a W & W driver struck and killed Rickey Brewer, who was standing behind the vehicle; the tractor had a large rear blind spot.
- Rickey's widow, Angela Brewer, sued PACCAR alleging the glider kit was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous because it lacked standard backup safety features; she produced expert testimony identifying feasible safety features that could have prevented the death.
- PACCAR moved for summary judgment arguing it was only a component manufacturer (not the final assembler) and that responsibility for optional safety features fell to W & W; PACCAR also asserted feasibility and context defenses.
- The trial court granted PACCAR summary judgment and denied Angela’s partial summary judgment; the appellate court reversed and remanded, holding genuine issues of material fact existed about PACCAR's duty and feasibility of standard safety features and that PACCAR could be liable under the IPLA as a component manufacturer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a component manufacturer (PACCAR) can be liable under the IPLA for design defects in a glider kit that became a completed vehicle | Brewer: PACCAR designed a kit lacking feasible, standard backup safety features (alarm, camera, lights, warnings) that made the completed vehicle unreasonably dangerous to bystanders | PACCAR: As a component seller, it was not required to provide optional safety features; responsibility for final vehicle safety rested with the final assembler (W & W); feasibility and varied uses preclude liability | Reversed: PACCAR not insulated as a matter of law; jury issues exist whether it was unreasonable to market the kit without standard backup safety features and whether those omissions proximately caused the death |
| Applicability of negligence standard vs. strict liability for design/warning claims | Brewer: Design defect/warning claim governed by negligence standard under IPLA but otherwise same proof as strict liability | PACCAR: N/A (accepts legal standard) | Held: Design or failure-to-warn claims are governed by negligence under I.C. § 34-20-2-2; plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to create fact issues |
| Whether evidence that buyer (W & W) could have ordered optional features defeats liability | Brewer: Manufacturer may still be liable if feasible safety features should have been standard and would not have impaired intended use | PACCAR: W & W knowingly declined options; manufacturer may rely on purchaser choices and cannot foresee all end uses | Held: Buyer’s choice does not automatically absolve manufacturer; fact question whether leaving features optional was reasonable (Bexiga reasoning adopted) |
| Whether decedent qualifies as a "consumer"/bystander under the IPLA | Brewer: Rickey was a bystander reasonably expected to be near the product during its normal use, so IPLA applies | PACCAR: Conceded Rickey was a consumer for IPLA purposes | Held: No dispute—Rickey is a consumer/bystander and the IPLA applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Shanks v. A.F.E. Indus., Inc., 416 N.E.2d 833 (Ind. 1981) (component used in varied complex systems—manufacturer’s duty to warn may be limited where purchaser is sophisticated and adapts product)
- Bexiga v. Havir Mfg. Corp., 290 A.2d 281 (N.J. 1972) (manufacturer may be liable for omitting feasible safety devices that should be standard rather than left to purchaser)
- Verge v. Ford Motor Co., 581 F.2d 384 (3d Cir. 1978) (cab-and-chassis manufacturer not liable where component was general-purpose and final assembler responsible for adaptation/alarms)
- Anderson v. P.A. Radocy & Sons, Inc., 865 F. Supp. 522 (N.D. Ind. 1994) (district court: no liability for failing to equip product with optional device the employer rejected)
- TRW Vehicle Safety Sys., Inc. v. Moore, 936 N.E.2d 201 (Ind. 2010) (design-defect and warning claims under IPLA are governed by negligence standard)
- Green v. Ford Motor Co., 942 N.E.2d 791 (Ind. 2011) (comparative fault principles apply in IPLA cases)