Modisette v. Apple Inc.
241 Cal. Rptr. 3d 209
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- On Dec. 24, 2014, driver Garrett Wilhelm, using FaceTime on an iPhone 6 Plus, crashed into the Modisettes’ stopped car; three family members were seriously injured and a five‑year‑old (Moriah) died. Police found Wilhelm’s iPhone at the scene with FaceTime active.
- Plaintiffs (Bethany and James Modisette and daughter Isabella) sued Apple alleging negligence, negligent and strict products liability, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, loss of consortium, and public nuisance, claiming Apple failed to implement patented ‘‘lockout’’ technology to disable FaceTime while driving.
- Complaint alleged Apple had a 2008 patent application and a 2014 patent for lockout technology and that FaceTime was factory‑installed on the iPhone 6 Plus released Sept. 2014.
- Trial court sustained Apple’s demurrer without leave to amend, finding plaintiffs failed to plead duty or causation; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: it held Apple owed no duty of care to the Modisettes and, for remaining claims, Apple’s conduct was not a proximate cause as a matter of law; leave to amend denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Apple owed a duty to plaintiffs to design iPhone to lock out FaceTime while driving | Apple’s failure to implement available lockout tech foreseeably created an unreasonable risk to others injured by distracted drivers | No duty: design merely enabled but did not cause third‑party’s reckless driving; imposing duty would create broad social and regulatory burdens | No duty; public‑policy factors and attenuated connection foreclose duty |
| Whether Apple’s design was proximate cause of plaintiffs’ injuries (for strict liability, IIED, consortium) | But‑for Apple’s omission, FaceTime would have been disabled and accident avoided | Although but‑for causation might be alleged, the scope of liability is limited as a matter of law because the direct cause was driver’s diversion of attention | But‑for causation alleged but scope of liability/proximate cause fails as matter of law; no proximate causation |
| Whether the trial court improperly decided causation on demurrer and usurped jury role | Causation and comparative fault are jury questions; plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts | Where only reasonable conclusion is lack of legal responsibility, court may resolve on demurrer; policy limits scope | Court properly decided scope/proximate causation on demurrer; jury role does not override legal limits |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted to add allegations about Apple’s later "Do Not Disturb While Driving" feature | New design change supports causation and duty arguments; merits amendment | New feature irrelevant to core policy/causation defects; does not cure legal shortcomings | Leave denied; amendment would not cure defects and change is not dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (Cal. 1968) (articulates public‑policy factors for creating exceptions to general duty rule)
- Kesner v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.5th 1132 (Cal. 2016) (discusses duty analysis and limits of duty where third‑party conduct and public policy factors are implicated)
- Lugtu v. California Highway Patrol, 26 Cal.4th 703 (Cal. 2001) (officer’s affirmative act in placing vehicle created duty when it directly put plaintiffs in danger)
- PPG Industries, Inc. v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 20 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 1999) (distinguishes factual causation from policy‑based limits on liability)
- State Dept. of State Hospitals v. Superior Court, 61 Cal.4th 339 (Cal. 2015) (explains when proximate cause may be decided as matter of law where only reasonable conclusion negates causation)
- Moore v. Regents of Univ. of California, 51 Cal.3d 120 (Cal. 1990) (demurrer review limited to properly pleaded material allegations)
- Lompoc Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.App.4th 1688 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (no duty on landowner to prevent activities that distract motorists; motorists owe duty to keep attention)