853 S.E.2d 329
S.C.2020Background
- John Harley Wickersham Jr. was severely injured in an automobile collision; after months of pain from those injuries he committed suicide.
- His personal representative (widow) sued Ford, alleging a defective airbag design enhanced his injuries and pain, proximately causing suicide; claims included negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty.
- The District Court denied Ford's summary judgment motion that suicide was an intervening act; case proceeded to jury trial.
- The jury found the airbag defective and proximately caused the enhanced injuries and suicide, but also found Wickersham 30% at fault for enhancing his injuries by being out of position.
- The District Court entered judgment for plaintiff but refused to reduce damages for the decedent’s fault; Fourth Circuit certified two questions to the South Carolina Supreme Court.
- The Court answered: (1) suicide claims are governed by traditional proximate-cause rules (court decides foreseeability as a matter of law, then jury addresses foreseeability and cause-in-fact); (2) comparative negligence does not reduce a manufacturer’s strict-liability/warranty liability for enhanced injuries when the plaintiff’s conduct did not cause the collision and was non‑tortious, though such conduct is not automatically legally remote.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suicide categorically breaks causation ("uncontrollable impulse" exception) | Wickersham: suicide can be proximately caused by defendant's tort (via uncontrollable impulse) so wrongful-death recovery is available | Ford: suicide is intervening and breaks causal chain, barring recovery | No categorical rule; apply proximate-cause principles. Court decides foreseeability as a matter of law; if not unforeseeable, jury decides foreseeability and cause‑in‑fact including involuntary impulse |
| Whether comparative negligence/fault reduces manufacturer liability for enhanced injuries when plaintiff's conduct only enhanced injuries (not cause of accident) and was non‑tortious | Wickersham: plaintiff’s non‑tortious conduct should not be used to reduce strict-liability/warranty recovery for enhanced injuries | Ford: Wickersham’s being out of position caused enhancement and his share of fault should reduce recovery | Comparative negligence does not apply to reduce manufacturer liability in this context; plaintiff’s non‑tortious actions that merely enhanced injuries are not relevant to a comparative‑fault defense, though such conduct is not always legally remote and proximate‑cause analysis remains applicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Greenville Pharmacy, 212 S.C. 485, 48 S.E.2d 324 (S.C. 1948) (applied proximate‑cause/foreseeability analysis to wrongful‑death by suicide).
- Horne v. Beason, 285 S.C. 518, 331 S.E.2d 342 (S.C. 1985) (held suicide not foreseeable as matter of law under facts; court decides foreseeability).
- Baggerly v. CSX Transp., Inc., 370 S.C. 362, 635 S.E.2d 97 (S.C. 2006) (explains proximate‑cause elements and role of foreseeability as touchstone of legal cause).
- Donze v. General Motors, LLC, 420 S.C. 8, 800 S.E.2d 479 (S.C. 2017) (held comparative negligence does not reduce manufacturer liability for enhanced injuries caused by defect when fault relates to causing the collision).
- Jimenez v. Chrysler Corp., 74 F. Supp. 2d 548 (D.S.C. 1999) (district‑court reasoning that negligence causing collision is legally remote from defect‑caused enhanced injury).
- Oliver v. S.C. Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp., 309 S.C. 313, 422 S.E.2d 128 (S.C. 1992) (foreseeability typically a jury issue, but legal‑cause can be decided as matter of law).