LEE GOLDBERG VS. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC(L-9481-14, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-1765-15T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 3, 2017Background
- In May 2014 Lee Goldberg burned his calf on the tailpipe of a leased 2014 BMW X3; he asserted the tailpipe extended beyond the rear bumper and posed an unreasonable burn risk.
- Goldberg produced photographs of his 2014 X3 (showing an extended tailpipe) and a 2007 X3 (showing a tailpipe flush with the bumper) and argued the 2007 configuration showed a safer alternative design.
- Discovery showed BMW had prior complaints about X3 tailpipe burns and that BMW recalled certain Mini Cooper S models in 2008 for exhaust pipes extending beyond the bumper.
- Goldberg sued under the New Jersey Products Liability Act asserting design-defect and failure-to-warn claims; he conceded no manufacturing-defect claim.
- BMW moved for summary judgment, arguing (1) the exhaust is a complex instrumentality requiring expert proof of a feasible alternative design (which Goldberg lacked), and (2) the owner’s manual contained an adequate warning about hot exhausts.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for BMW, dismissing both claims; the Appellate Division reversed as to design defect and affirmed as to failure to warn.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff needed expert proof of a feasible, safer alternative design for the tailpipe | Goldberg: Photographs (2014 v. 2007) and prior complaints/recall show an obvious safer alternative; expert not required | BMW: Exhaust system is a complex instrumentality; expert testimony required to prove a practical, technical alternative | Reversed trial court; BMW failed to carry its summary-judgment burden to show no dispute because it submitted no supporting certification showing complexity; issue remanded for factfinder consideration |
| Whether the consumer-expectations (self-evident defect) doctrine applied so no expert was needed | Goldberg: Tailpipe placement is self-evidently unsafe, so consumer-expectations applies | BMW: Product utility and technical aspects make it not self-evident; expert may be needed | Consumer-expectations test does not apply here because it is not self-evident the X3 failed to perform its function (transportation); but summary judgment on design claim reversed for other reasons |
| Whether BMW’s owner’s manual provided an adequate warning about hot exhausts | Goldberg: The warning may be inadequate; issue for jury | BMW: Manual warns that exhaust is hot; no evidence provided that warning was inadequate | Affirmed: owner’s manual contained a warning and Goldberg presented no evidence an alternative or more complete warning was required |
| Whether record contained genuine disputes of material fact precluding summary judgment | Goldberg: Photographs, complaints, and the Mini recall create factual disputes about defect and warning adequacy | BMW: No expert; warning present; asks court to take judicial notice that exhaust is complex | Court: Summary judgment improper as to design claim because BMW did not meet its burden to negate dispute; proper as to warning claim because no contrary evidence on adequacy of warning |
Key Cases Cited
- Johansen v. Makita USA, Inc., 128 N.J. 86 (1992) (risk-utility framework for design-defect analysis)
- O'Brien v. Muskin Corp., 94 N.J. 169 (1983) (seven-factor risk-utility test)
- Lewis v. American Cyanamid Co., 155 N.J. 544 (1998) (plaintiff must show practical, feasible alternative design)
- Rocco v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 330 N.J. Super. 320 (App. Div. 2000) (expert testimony ordinarily required for complex instrumentalities)
- Suter v. San Angelino Foundry & Mach. Co., 81 N.J. 150 (1979) (consumer-expectations/self-evident defect doctrine)
- Scanlon v. General Motors Corp., 65 N.J. 582 (1974) (circumstantial proof may sometimes substitute for expert proof)