Dortch v. Jane Doe & Chrysler Group, LLC, 217 So. 3d 449

Background

In summer 2012 Joseph M. Dortch ran off a two‑lane road in a 2012 Jeep Cherokee after alleging an unknown driver crossed the center line; Dortch was injured and the vehicle was totaled and later sold for salvage.
Dortch sued the unknown driver and Chrysler Group, LLC (later FCA US LLC), alleging the front/side airbags failed to deploy and that this failure was a proximate cause of his injuries under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA).
FCA moved for summary judgment (Feb. 2016) arguing Dortch lacked evidence on essential LPLA elements and no longer possessed the subject vehicle or its parts.
Dortch produced photos, a State Farm inspection report, and an affidavit showing damage and nondeployment, argued res ipsa loquitur should apply, and noted discovery was open as to locating the vehicle and obtaining expert testimony.
The trial court granted summary judgment, finding absence of the vehicle and lack of evidence that airbags should have deployed or that FCA had exclusive control; res ipsa did not apply.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dortch presented sufficient evidence under the LPLA to show airbags were unreasonably dangerous (construction, design, or warning defect)	Dortch relied on photos, insurer inspection report, and affidavit; argued res ipsa loquitur can supply the missing proof and discovery remained open to obtain experts/vehicle	FCA argued Dortch has no vehicle/parts or expert proof to establish deviation from specs, alternative design, or inadequate warning; failure to deploy alone is insufficient	Summary judgment affirmed — Dortch failed to produce evidence of any LPLA element; res ipsa inapplicable without evidence that airbags should have deployed or that FCA had exclusive control
Whether res ipsa loquitur applies to infer defect from airbag nondeployment	Dortch: doctrine allows inference of defect where direct evidence lacking; could shift burden and permit expert later	FCA: nondeployment alone is consistent with proper airbag function in many accidents; absence of vehicle prevents inference	Court: res ipsa not applicable — circumstances not so unusual, no exclusive control, and no evidence to support inference that airbags were defective
Whether summary judgment was premature because discovery remained open	Dortch: discovery ongoing, no expert disclosure deadline, possible to secure expert opinion later	FCA: motion raised lack of factual support after ample time to locate vehicle; delay not automatic bar to summary judgment	Court: no abuse of discretion — Dortch had years to locate vehicle and pursue expert; judge may grant summary judgment before discovery completion when no genuine issue appears
Whether failure to present subject vehicle precludes product liability claim	Dortch: attempted to rely on circumstantial evidence and res ipsa; sought time to locate vehicle	FCA: absence of the vehicle eliminates crucial evidence needed to prove LPLA elements	Court: absence of vehicle fatal to claim at summary judgment stage; plaintiff bears burden to produce factual support

Key Cases Cited

Reynolds v. Bordelon, 172 So.3d 607 (La. 2015) (summary judgment standard and nonmovant’s burden)
Lawson v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc., 938 So.2d 35 (La. 2006) (res ipsa loquitur may be used in products‑liability context to shift burden)
Batiste v. General Motors Corp., 802 So.2d 686 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2001) (failure of airbag to deploy can be consistent with proper functioning)
Cangelosi v. Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center, 564 So.2d 654 (La. 1990) (discussion that some accidents may occur absent negligence)
Mederos v. St. Tammany Parish Government, 199 So.3d 30 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2016) (appellate de novo review of summary judgment)
Gisclair v. Bonneval, 928 So.2d 39 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2005) (elements for res ipsa loquitur)
Juris v. Ford Motor Co., 752 So.2d 260 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2000) (relaxation of exclusive control element for res ipsa)