W.S.R v. FCA US Llc

Background

W.S.R., an infant represented by his father, William Richardson, along with William Richardson and Nicole Richardson, sued FCA US, LLC; Yanfeng US Automotive Interior Systems II LLC (YFAI); Adient PLC; Johnson Controls, Inc.; and JCIM, LLC. The claims arose from an accident involving a 2017 Chrysler Pacifica. W.S.R. opened the vehicle’s manual parking-release cover, pulled an orange string, and caused the vehicle to begin rolling backward. When he tried to stop it, the vehicle rolled over him and continued down the driveway.

The Plaintiffs alleged strict products liability and negligence based on the manual parking-release cover’s design, manufacture, and warnings. The case also included claims and crossclaims for contractual defense and indemnity, common-law indemnification, contribution, and failure to procure insurance.

Summary-judgment rulings

Summary judgment is granted when the evidence shows that no genuine dispute over an important fact requires a trial and that the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court ruled on several cross-motions.

Adient, Johnson Controls, and JCIM’s motion against the Plaintiffs. The court granted this motion for summary judgment and dismissed Adient, Johnson Controls, and JCIM—collectively called AJJ—from the action. The court concluded that Johnson Controls’ relevant contracts and liabilities had transferred to YFAI when the joint venture was formed. The evidence showed that YFAI continued developing the manual parking-release cover, FCA later approved the design, and production began after that approval. The court rejected the argument that a manufacturing-date stamp established that AJJ manufactured the cover used in the vehicle. Because AJJ was not shown to be in the product’s manufacturing, selling, or distribution chain, it could not be held liable for the Plaintiffs’ product-liability or negligence claims.

Because AJJ was dismissed, the court declined to rule on AJJ’s separate summary-judgment motions against FCA and YFAI.

The Plaintiffs’ motion against FCA and on affirmative defenses. The court granted the Plaintiffs’ motion on their manufacturing-defect theory against FCA. The Plaintiffs argued that molding cavities produced manual parking-release covers that did not meet dimensional requirements. FCA did not address that theory in its opposition, so the court treated the theory as abandoned by FCA and granted summary judgment on it.

The court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion on the design-defect claim. It found that the evidence established that the cover violated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 114 and that FCA had recalled affected vehicles before the accident. That evidence supported the conclusion that the cover design was defective. But FCA presented evidence disputing whether the alleged defect was the direct cause of W.S.R.’s injury, including testing in which children of similar age and size were unable to open the cover with a pinky finger. Because deciding which evidence was more credible was not proper at summary judgment, the design-defect claim remained unresolved.

The court also denied the Plaintiffs’ motion on the failure-to-warn claim. FCA presented evidence of warnings about applying the parking brake, vehicle movement, and the dangers of activating the manual parking release. The Plaintiffs argued that FCA needed to provide a specific warning about the defect that allowed the cover to be opened without a tool. The conflicting evidence created a factual dispute about whether the warnings were adequate and whether any failure to warn caused the injury.

The court granted the Plaintiffs’ motion concerning specified affirmative defenses asserted by FCA and YFAI. Under New York law, parental negligence generally cannot be attributed to an infant plaintiff, and a defendant cannot avoid liability to a child by asserting negligent supervision. The court also concluded that assumption of risk generally did not apply to this accident and, in any event, did not apply on the facts involving a nine-year-old child. The court therefore dismissed YFAI’s First, Sixth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth affirmative defenses and FCA’s First, Third, Fourth, and Fourteenth affirmative defenses, as identified in the order.

FCA’s motion against YFAI. FCA sought summary judgment on its contractual defense and indemnity claim against YFAI. The court denied the motion. Applying Michigan law, the court held that the contract did not clearly and unambiguously require YFAI to indemnify FCA for FCA’s own negligence. The evidence also created a factual dispute about whether FCA was ultimately responsible for testing and approving the manual parking-release design. A reasonable jury could find that FCA was solely responsible for the conduct at issue, so summary judgment was inappropriate.

YFAI’s motion. The court denied YFAI’s motion on FCA’s contribution claim. A factual dispute remained about whether FCA was free from active negligence and whether FCA and YFAI could be jointly responsible for the injury.

The court also denied YFAI’s motion on FCA’s common-law indemnification claims. Under Michigan law, a party seeking common-law indemnification must be free from active negligence. Because the record contained factual disputes about FCA’s responsibility for the design, testing, and manufacture of the cover, the court could not decide that issue as a matter of law.

The court denied YFAI’s motion on FCA’s claim that YFAI breached a contract requiring it to obtain sufficient insurance. The evidence showed that YFAI purchased insurance covering products and completed operations, but the policies also contained exclusions and limits. The court could not determine on the existing record whether the coverage was sufficient to cover the claims or whether YFAI breached the contract.

Finally, the court denied YFAI’s motion on the Plaintiffs’ negligence and strict-liability claims. It rejected YFAI’s argument that it was outside the product’s distribution chain, noting that YFAI was involved in designing, manufacturing, and supplying the manual parking-release covers. The court adopted its earlier analysis of the product-liability theories and concluded that factual disputes required those claims to remain in the case.

Disposition

The court granted AJJ’s motion against the Plaintiffs, granted the Plaintiffs’ motion in part and denied it in part, denied FCA’s motion, and denied YFAI’s motion. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions, and the court scheduled a status hearing for November 15, 2022.