MALCOLM V. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC. 217 P.3d 514 (2009) CASE BRIEF

MALCOLM V. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC.

217 P.3d 514 (2009)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Evenflo (D) appealed an order which awarded compensatory and punitive damages to Malcom (P), parents, in a product liability action.

FACTS: D manufactures child restraint systems, or child seats. D marketed the OMW as a rear-facing vehicle child safety seat intended for transporting infants weighing up to 20 pounds. The user routed the vehicle's seat belt through an enclosed seat belt 'tunnel' on the base when they used the detachable base. The seat then latched into the base. The user also could unlatch the seat from the base and use it as a baby carrier. NHTSA required D to conduct internal testing of the OMW to determine if it complied with the FMVSS 213 standards. NHTSA and Transport Canada, the Canadian testing agency, conducted random audit FMVSS 213 tests in addition to D's internal testing. FMVSS 213 does not require side-impact, rear-impact, or rollover testing. D's internal testing indicated that the production model 206 was prone to failure of the plastic seat belt hooks and/or the adjacent plastic shell. Internal videotapes showed the OMW seats breaking apart in the area of the vehicle seat belt path. The breaking caused the OMW to come loose from the test sled's seat belt. The videotapes depicted the OMW ejecting from the sled due to the open belt hook design. D notified NHTSA on June 12, 1995, that it was going to conduct a 'consumer corrective action/recall campaign' as the OMW did not meet the requirements of FMVSS 213. D installed the retrofit kit on its unsold inventory. Evenflo rebranded the retrofitted OMWs as model 207x and sent all 55,000 seats to retailers. In 1997, Ruthie Gonzales of Merced, California, reported to D that her retrofitted model 207 OMW's belt hook had broken off during a rollover accident. A friend gave P the OMW while Jessica was pregnant. Jessica called D to ask if the OMW model 207 was safe to use. Evenflo assured her that the OMW was not subject to any of their recalls and that the OMW was safe to use. A northbound motorist swerved into P's lane and forced P off the road. The Suburban rolled three times, traveled down a steep incline, and stopped in a ditch. P did not suffer serious injury. Her sister sustained a severe head injury. The left belt hook of the OMW broke off during the rollover. The OMW came to rest approximately 60 feet from the Suburban. Tyler remained strapped in the OMW. Tyler, the son, suffered brain injuries that resulted in his death. P sued D. The trial court excluded evidence of compliance with FMVSS 213. The jury awarded the P $6,697,491 in compensatory damages. The jury also awarded P $3,700,000 in punitive damages. D appealed. D argues that the District Court abused its discretion when it excluded any evidence that the OMW model 207 complied with FMVSS 213.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner