997 F.3d 526
4th Cir.2021Background
- In 2011 John Wickersham crashed his 2010 Ford Escape, suffered severe facial injuries (including loss of left eye) and chronic pain; about 17 months later he died by suicide after ingesting methadone.
- Plaintiffs (Wickersham’s estate and wife) sued Ford in South Carolina state court for negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty under a crashworthiness theory (alleging the airbag deployment caused/enhanced injuries); Ford removed to federal court.
- The district court allowed expert causation testimony (Dr. Skoner) tying injuries to airbag deployment, denied Ford’s summary judgment on the wrongful-death claim, and instructed the jury using an “uncontrollable impulse” framework for suicide-related proximate cause.
- A jury awarded $4.65 million (including $2.75 million for death-related damages) and found Wickersham 30% at fault; the court nevertheless entered judgment without reducing damages for comparative fault.
- Ford appealed, raising three principal issues: (1) admissibility of plaintiff’s causation expert; (2) legal standard for proximate cause when death is by suicide (and related jury instructions); and (3) whether plaintiff’s comparative fault should reduce damages for strict liability/breach claims.
- The Fourth Circuit certified two questions to the South Carolina Supreme Court; after receiving answers, the Fourth Circuit affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part with instructions (vacating the wrongful-death judgment and remanding for reconsideration/new trial on that claim; otherwise affirming).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Dr. Skoner’s causation opinion | Skoner used a reliable medical differential-diagnosis and her opinion was corroborated by other evidence and experts | Skoner’s methodology was unreliable conjecture and should have been excluded under Rule 702 | Admission, if error, was harmless because other expert and non-expert evidence supported airbag causation; no reversal on this ground |
| Whether suicide is unforeseeable as a matter of law / the “uncontrollable impulse” exception | Wickersham argued his suicide could be the foreseeable result of accident-related injuries and chronic pain; an uncontrollable impulse theory was presented | Ford argued suicide ordinarily breaks the causal chain and is unforeseeable as a matter of law; no uncontrollable-impulse exception exists that eliminates foreseeability | South Carolina does not recognize an automatic uncontrollable-impulse exception; usual proximate-cause test (but-for causation and foreseeability) applies and the suicide must be specifically foreseeable |
| Jury instructions on suicide proximate cause | Charge adequately explained proximate cause and allowed jury to find Ford caused an uncontrollable impulse that led to suicide | Instruction permitted liability without requiring that the suicide be foreseeable to Ford | Instruction was legally erroneous and prejudicial: vacatur of the wrongful-death verdict and remand for reconsideration or new trial on that claim |
| Comparative fault and damages reduction for strict liability/breach claims | Plaintiffs: comparative negligence is not a defense to strict liability or breach-of-warranty crashworthiness claims; jury’s 30% fault should not reduce damages | Ford: jury’s finding of 30% fault should reduce damages for enhanced injuries | Comparative negligence is not an affirmative defense to these claims; plaintiff’s fault is relevant only to whether it severs proximate cause. District court did not err in refusing to reduce the award (but defendant may still contest proximate cause on remand) |
Key Cases Cited
- Wickersham v. Ford Motor Co., 853 S.E.2d 329 (S.C. 2020) (South Carolina Supreme Court’s answers to certified questions clarifying foreseeability and suicide in wrongful-death cases)
- Donze v. Gen. Motors, LLC, 800 S.E.2d 479 (S.C. 2017) (crashworthiness doctrine and discussion of comparative fault in such cases)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (trial-court discretion in admitting expert testimony under Rule 702)
- Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB, 178 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 1999) (differential diagnosis as reliable methodology for medical causation opinion)
- Baggerly v. CSX Transp., Inc., 635 S.E.2d 97 (S.C. 2006) (proximate cause requires causation-in-fact and legal foreseeability)
- Koester v. Carolina Rental Ctr., Inc., 443 S.E.2d 392 (S.C. 1994) (foreseeability is the touchstone of proximate cause)