Background

• Federal court certified Indiana law issue on apportioning fault in crashworthiness case under Indiana Product Liability Act.
• Green alleges Ford’s restraint design caused enhanced injuries in a 1999 Explorer crash.
• Indiana law requires comparative fault; crashworthiness doctrine expands proximate cause to enhanced injuries.
• Indiana decisions recognize crashworthiness as separate from initial collision; evidence may include plaintiff’s conduct.
• Court clarifies that fault may be allocated to plaintiff only if fault is a proximate cause of the injuries sought.
• Court modifies certified question and holds fault may be apportioned to plaintiff if proximate cause of the injuries.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Larsen v. General Motors Corp., 391 F.2d 495 (8th Cir. 1968) (crashworthiness doctrine; liability for damage beyond initial impact)
• Miller v. Todd, 551 N.E.2d 1139 (Ind. 1990) (recognizes crashworthiness theory in Indiana)
• Barnard v. Saturn Corp., a Div. of General Motors Corp., 790 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (supports extended liability for enhanced injuries)
• Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Gregg, 554 N.E.2d 1145 (Ind.Ct.App.1990) (extended injuries doctrine; not granting express limit to initial collision)
• Jackson v. Warrum, 535 N.E.2d 1207 (Ind.Ct.App.1989) (enhanced injury claims viability; second collision)
• Masterman v. Veldman's Equip., Inc., 530 N.E.2d 312 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) (permitting product liability for injuries caused by product beyond accident)
• Control Techniques, Inc. v. Johnson, 762 N.E.2d 104 (Ind.2002) (proximate cause requirement preserved in comparative fault)
• Paragon Family Restaurant v. Bartolini, 799 N.E.2d 1048 (Ind.2003) (the jury may consider relative degree of causation)
• Walters v. Dean, 497 N.E.2d 247 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) (allocation of fault; question for trier of fact)