Heard v. FCA US LLC, 2:18-cv-00912

In April 2016 Latonya Heard was driving a 2004–2009 Dodge Ram 3500 and was struck head-on; the driver-side airbag deployed and Heard sustained a broken forearm requiring surgery.
Heard sued FCA US LLC (and initially Takata) in state court alleging the airbag was defective and asserting AEMLD, negligent design/manufacture, wantonness, failure to warn, and breach of implied warranty claims; claims against Takata and punitive damages were later dropped.
FCA removed the case to federal court. Under the Court’s scheduling order Heard failed to disclose any expert witnesses or produce expert reports as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B).
FCA produced uncontradicted expert evidence that the subject airbag inflator housing had not ruptured and that the airbag deployed normally.
A prior FCA recall notice warned that certain 2004–2009 Dodge Ram airbag inflators “may rupture,” but the notice addressed a class of vehicles and did not admit a defect in Heard’s specific truck.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Heard can prove an AEMLD products-liability claim about an airbag without expert proof	Heard: lay testimony about the collision/injury can show the airbag was defective	FCA: airbags are complex technical products; Alabama law requires expert proof of defect and Heard offered no experts	Court: Expert testimony is required for airbags under Alabama law; AEMLD claim dismissed
Whether Heard’s own lay testimony can substitute for expert testimony	Heard: she can testify about forces and that the airbag caused an unreasonable force	FCA: Heard lacks engineering/technical knowledge about airbag design, chemicals, deployment speed	Court: Lay testimony insufficient to prove a technical defect
Whether FCA’s recall notice establishes a defect in the specific vehicle	Heard: recall notice shows FCA admitted a defect	FCA: recall references possible defects in a class of vehicles and its expert shows this truck did not exhibit the recalled defect	Court: Recall alone is insufficient to create a genuine issue about a defect in this vehicle
Whether negligence, wantonness, failure-to-warn, and breach-of-warranty claims survive	Heard: asserts those common-law/state-law claims tied to the alleged airbag defect	FCA: those claims fail absent proof of a defect; warranty claims subsumed by AEMLD	Court: All claims fail for lack of proof of a defect (warranty also subsumed by AEMLD); summary judgment for FCA

Casrell v. Altec Indus., Inc., 335 So.2d 128 (Ala. 1976) (sets AEMLD elements)
Brooks v. Colonial Chevrolet-Buick, 579 So.2d 1328 (Ala. 1991) (expert testimony required for complex products)
Verchot v. Gen. Motors Corp., 812 So.2d 296 (Ala. 2001) (same)
Townsend v. Gen. Motors Corp., 642 So.2d 411 (Ala. 1994) (injury alone does not prove defect)
Britt v. Chrysler Corp., 699 So.2d 179 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997) (airbag is a complex technical commodity requiring expert proof)
Yarbrough v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 628 So.2d 478 (Ala. 1993) (AEMLD subsumes warranty claims)
Shell v. Union Oil Co., 489 So.2d 569 (Ala. 1986) (treatment of product defect issues under AEMLD)
Donnelly v. Club Car, Inc., 724 So.2d 25 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998) (no duty to warn claim without proof of product defect)