Howard Piltch v. Ford Motor Company
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2169
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- In 2006 the Piltches’ 2003 Mercury Mountaineer was in an accident; its airbags did not deploy and the vehicle was repaired. It is unclear whether the restraint control module (black box) was reset.
- In 2007 the same vehicle struck a wall after sliding on black ice; airbags again did not deploy and both plaintiffs were seriously injured. The vehicle was repaired and later sold; the buyer (a mechanic) reprogrammed the black box, erasing crash data.
- Plaintiffs sued Ford under the Indiana Products Liability Act (IPLA), alleging design and manufacturing defects and invoking res ipsa loquitur; plaintiffs did not disclose any expert reports despite an extended deadline.
- Ford moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiffs lacked required expert proof on defect and proximate cause; plaintiffs relied on their testimony and the owner’s manual as circumstantial evidence and urged res ipsa loquitur.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Ford, finding plaintiffs’ circumstantial evidence insufficient to raise triable issues of defect or causation and that res ipsa loquitur did not apply. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IPLA claim can proceed without expert testimony on defect | Piltch: owner’s manual + plaintiff testimony create circumstantial evidence of a defect, so no expert needed | Ford: technical issues (airbag design, deployment thresholds) are beyond lay understanding and require expert proof | Held: No — plaintiffs needed expert testimony for design or manufacturing defect claims |
| Whether circumstantial evidence (manual + testimony) can show defect as in Cansler | Piltch: like Cansler, circumstantial proof suffices to avoid experts | Ford: facts differ; plaintiffs lack skilled-witness or post-crash vehicle inspection and lost black box data | Held: No — evidence here is weaker than Cansler and rests on speculation |
| Whether plaintiffs proved proximate cause / crashworthiness without experts | Piltch: injuries were enhanced by airbag non-deployment; plaintiffs’ evidence shows causation | Ford: cannot separate collision-caused injuries from alleged enhancement without expert analysis | Held: No — causation (including enhanced injuries) requires expert proof to avoid speculation |
| Whether res ipsa loquitur applies to infer defect/negligence | Piltch: doctrine creates inference that airbags should have deployed and Ford had control | Ford: plaintiffs cannot show exclusive control or negate other explanations (e.g., module not reset) | Held: No — plaintiffs failed to show exclusive control or eliminate other plausible causes; res ipsa inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (federal courts apply state substantive law in diversity)
- Ellis v. DHL Express Inc., 633 F.3d 522 (7th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Bourne v. Marty Gilman, Inc., 452 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2006) (elements of IPLA claims)
- Daub v. Daub, 629 N.E.2d 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (expert required when issue beyond lay understanding)
- Whitted v. General Motors Corp., 58 F.3d 1200 (7th Cir. 1995) (res ipsa loquitur and need to show defendant control)
- Cansler v. Mills, 765 N.E.2d 698 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (circumstantial evidence can sometimes obviate experts where skilled witness/testimony supports inference)
- Pries v. Honda Motor Co., 31 F.3d 543 (7th Cir. 1994) (design-defect requires proof of feasible, cost-effective alternative design)
- Barnard v. Saturn Corp., 790 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (elements for crashworthiness/enhanced-injury claims)