White v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.
2012 WL 5357992
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiff Roland Todd White sues Mazda Motor of America, Inc. and Cartwright Auto for product liability arising from a 2006 Mazda3 fire that injured him.
- Plaintiff purchased the vehicle October 16, 2006; about a month later, on November 15–16, 2006, a fire erupted after he opened the hood; he alleges defects in fuel lines and related components.
- Plaintiff asserted multiple theories including manufacturing/design defect, failure to test, failure to warn, and breach of merchantability under Connecticut Product Liability Act § 52-572m et seq.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment December 1, 2010, arguing plaintiff had no competent evidence of defect or causation and offered limited discovery evidence favorable to plaintiff.
- Plaintiff opposed with Morris, a fire investigator, offering testimony and reports suggesting the fuel-release clip/gasket defect caused the fire; Morris acknowledged limits on his expertise in certain automotive domains.
- Trial court granted summary judgment June 22, 2011, holding expert testimony was required to prove defect and proximate causation under the act; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff offered sufficient expert evidence of defect under the act | White presented Morris's causation-based opinions and affidavits claiming a defective fuel system design/installation. | Mazda/Cartwright argued Morris could not opine that the fuel system was defective and no other expert testimony existed on defect. | No genuine issue; judgment affirmed. |
| Whether the malfunction theory was preserved and/or applicable on appeal | Plaintiff contends circumstantial evidence supports a malfunction theory for a prima facie case. | Defendants assert malfunction theory was not raised below and cannot be considered on appeal. | Court declined to consider malfunction theory; affirmed summary judgment. |
| Whether malfunction theory can establish a prima facie case without expert testimony | Circumstantial evidence suffices under malfunction theory per Metropolitan Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Deere & Co. | Absent expert testimony or direct evidence of defect, plaintiff cannot prove defect and causation. | Majority rejects; plaintiff did not raise malfunction theory below; affirmance remains. |
Key Cases Cited
- Metropolitan Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Deere & Co., 302 Conn. 123 (2011) (malfunction theory permits circumstantial evidence where direct defect evidence is unavailable)
- Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 241 Conn. 199 (1997) (definition of strict liability and reasonable dangers; expert need not always be required)
- Keeney v. Mystic Valley Hunt Club, Inc., 93 Conn. App. 368 (2006) (expert testimony required when issue exceeds ordinary knowledge)