STARK EX REL. JACOBSEN v. Ford Motor Co.
365 N.C. 468
N.C.2012Background
- Stark minors sue Ford for injuries from a 2003 crash in a 1998 Ford Taurus; plaintiffs claim enhanced injuries from seat belt design.
- Ford asserts the section 99B-3 defense to shield liability when a modification to the product causes injury.
- Trial court instructed the jury on 99B-3, requiring proof that an alteration occurred after leaving Ford's control and caused enhanced injuries.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding 99B-3 applies only when the modifier is a party to the action at trial.
- NC Supreme Court holds 99B-3 applies when anyone other than the manufacturer modifies the product, and remands to consider sufficiency of evidence that Gordon Stark modified the Taurus.
- Court notes it will not address other issues beyond the modification defense and remand for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 99B-3 defense applies to non-parties to the action | Stark argues 99B-3 only applies when the modifier is a party to the action. | Ford contends 99B-3 applies to any modifier after product leaves control, regardless of party status. | Defense applies to any modifier, not limited to a party to the action. |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Gordon Stark modified the Taurus | Evidence shows Gordon placed Cheyenne in car and belt issues; modification possible. | Evidence could support modification by Gordon if belt placement changed after buckling. | Sufficient evidence could support a finding that Gordon modified the belt. |
| Interpretation of the word 'party' in §99B-3 | Broad interpretation limits applicability to modifiers in the action. | Text supports broad reading to include non-parties. | Court adopts broad interpretation of 'party' to include non-parties. |
Key Cases Cited
- Correll v. Div. of Soc. Servs., 332 N.C. 141 (1992) (undefined words given ordinary meaning in statutory context)
- In re Ernst & Young, LLP, 363 N.C. 612 (2009) (statutory interpretation and de novo review standards)
- Walston v. Greene, 247 N.C. 693 (1958) (foreseeability and proximate cause; child negligence framework)
- Hastings ex rel. Pratt v. Seegars Fence Co., 128 N.C.App. 166 (1997) (proximate cause and foreseeability principles applied to children)
- Powell v. Cross, 263 N.C. 764 (1965) (evidence sufficiency standard for directed verdicts)