Donze v. General Motors, LLC
420 S.C. 8
S.C.2017Background
- In 2012 Donze was severely burned in a collision; he sued GM alleging the truck’s external gas tank design caused post‑collision fire and sought damages only for enhanced burn injuries.
- The driver (Brazell) allegedly had used synthetic marijuana; Donze’s initial impact injuries were minor compared to burns.
- GM moved for summary judgment arguing (1) South Carolina public policy against impaired driving should bar recovery and (2) comparative negligence should reduce or bar recovery; the district judge denied the motion and certified two questions to the state Supreme Court.
- Certified questions: whether comparative negligence applies to strict liability/breach of warranty crashworthiness claims (for enhanced injuries only), and whether public policy bars impaired drivers from such claims.
- The Court analyzed the crashworthiness doctrine (adopted in Mickle) and split authority from other jurisdictions before reaching its conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether comparative negligence in causing the collision can reduce recovery in crashworthiness claims for enhanced injuries | Comparative fault is irrelevant because enhanced injuries are a separate, divisible harm caused solely by the manufacturer’s defect | Plaintiff’s or another driver’s negligence should reduce or bar recovery via comparative negligence | No — comparative negligence for causing the initial collision does not apply to reduce manufacturer liability for enhanced injuries in crashworthiness claims under strict liability or breach of warranty |
| Whether South Carolina public policy against impaired driving bars an intoxicated plaintiff from bringing strict liability or breach of warranty crashworthiness claims | Tobias/Lydia public‑policy reasoning should preclude impaired plaintiffs from recovering under product liability statutes | Public policy against impaired driving supports barring recovery | No — Tobias and Lydia refused to create new first‑party negligence causes of action; they do not override statutory strict liability or warranty remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Mickle v. Blackmon, 252 S.C. 202, 166 S.E.2d 173 (1969) (adopts crashworthiness doctrine; manufacturer liable for design defects that enhance injuries)
- Daly v. Gen. Motors Corp., 20 Cal.3d 725, 144 Cal.Rptr. 380, 575 P.2d 1162 (1978) (Cal. Supreme Court held comparative negligence principles apply in strict products liability crashworthiness cases)
- Andrews v. Harley‑Davidson, 106 Nev. 533, 796 P.2d 1092 (1990) (Nevada Supreme Court held comparative negligence is not a defense in crashworthiness strict liability cases)
- Jimenez v. Daimler‑Chrysler Corp., 269 F.3d 439 (4th Cir. 2001) (affirming district court view that cause of original accident is irrelevant to enhanced‑injury crashworthiness claims)
- Tobias v. Sports Club, Inc., 332 S.C. 90, 504 S.E.2d 318 (1998) (declined to recognize a new first‑party cause of action by an intoxicated plaintiff against a tavern)
- Lydia v. Horton, 355 S.C. 36, 583 S.E.2d 750 (2003) (barred negligent entrustment claim by intoxicated plaintiff; emphasized plaintiffs shouldn’t shift responsibility for voluntary intoxication)