Wickersham v. Ford Motor Co.
194 F. Supp. 3d 434
D.S.C.2016Background
- In Feb 2011 John Wickersham was seriously injured in a single-car crash while driving a 2010 Ford Escape; he suffered severe facial and ocular injuries, chronic extreme pain, multiple surgeries, and later lost his left eye.
- Wickersham had a prior history of bipolar disorder and prior suicidal ideation; he was hospitalized in April 2012 for suicidal thoughts after the accident and was taken off pain medication, which temporarily relieved ideation; he died by suicide in July 2012 via overdose of prescription pain medication.
- Plaintiff (wife and personal representative) sued Ford alleging defective airbag/RCM (Restraint Control Module) design causing late airbag deployment, which worsened Wickersham’s injuries and led to suicide; claims included negligence, strict liability/design defect, and breach of warranty; failure-to-warn claim was conceded.
- Plaintiff’s engineering expert (Caruso) alleged the RCM algorithm was not calibrated for the offset pole crash and pointed to a feasible alternative “raised threshold” calibration used by other manufacturers; Ford’s experts disputed defect existence and consequences.
- Ford moved for summary judgment arguing (1) plaintiff has no proof of a feasible alternative design; (2) suicide is an intervening act that breaks causation for wrongful death; and (3) punitive damages are unavailable and would be constitutionally infirm.
- The court denied summary judgment in large part: it found plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of a feasible alternative design (expert testimony + industry practice), created a triable issue on proximate causation under an "uncontrollable impulse" theory, and created a triable issue on punitive damages; summary judgment granted only as to failure-to-warn claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feasible alternative design (design-defect) | Caruso: RCM algorithm could have used a raised-threshold calibration (or other recalibration) implemented by other manufacturers to avoid late airbag deployment | Ford: Plaintiff produced only conceptual proposals, not an actual algorithm or prototype; no analysis of costs/safety/functionality | Denied — expert testimony + industry practice suffices to create genuine issue of feasible alternative design under Branham/Restatement (Third) §2 |
| Suicide as intervening cause (proximate cause) | Wickersham’s suicide was caused by accident-related pain and diminished impulse control; expert (Dr. Schwartz‑Watts) opines collision diminished his ability to resist suicidal impulses | Ford: Suicide is an independent, intervening act that breaks causation as a matter of law; uncontrollable-impulse exception not recognized or requires ‘‘insanity’’ | Denied — court applies uncontrollable-impulse exception (as narrow proximate-cause question); expert affidavit/deposition create triable issue whether suicide was caused by uncontrollable impulse arising from injuries |
| Punitive damages availability | Evidence Ford knew of risks from delayed deployment and of alternative calibration used in industry; Ford consciously disregarded risk — supports punitive damages | Ford: Where reasonable dispute exists over defect, punitive damages improper; also due-process vagueness challenge | Denied — genuine dispute over defect does not categorically bar punitive damages; record contains evidence raising triable issue of reckless/wanton conduct; SC punitive-damages law not unconstitutionally vague here |
| Failure-to-warn claim | N/A (plaintiff conceded) | Ford: no warning claim evidence | Granted — plaintiff conceded failure-to-warn claim; summary judgment for Ford on that claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary-judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary-judgment burdens on movant/nonmovant)
- Branham v. Ford Motor Co., 390 S.C. 203, 701 S.E.2d 5 (South Carolina adoption of risk-utility test and feasible alternative design requirement)
- Scott v. Greenville Pharmacy, 212 S.C. 485, 48 S.E.2d 324 (suicide generally severs causation; foreseeability/exception analysis)
- Crolley v. Hutchins, 300 S.C. 355, 387 S.E.2d 716 (application of foreseeability in suicide/causation context)
- Fuller v. Freis, 35 N.Y.2d 425, 322 N.E.2d 263 (discussion of irresistible impulse and modern psychiatric understanding of suicide)
- Kivland v. Columbia Orthopaedic Grp., LLP, 331 S.W.3d 299 (MO) (trend toward proximate-cause focus over rigid irresistible-impulse rule)