Riley v. Ford Motor Co. Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 408 S.C. 1, 757 S.E.

Question

Riley v. Ford Motor Co. Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 408 S.C. 1, 757 S.E.2d 422 (2014). Background and Facts Background and Facts (Mark Scheuem/Alamy)

Jasper County Sheriff Benjamin Riley was driving his Ford F-150 pickup truck near Ehrhardt, South Carolina, when it collided with another vehicle. The impact caused Riley’s truck to leave the road and roll over. The driver’s door of the truck opened in the collision, and Riley was ejected and killed. Riley’s widow, Laura, as the representative of his estate, filed a product liability suit in a South Carolina state court against Ford Motor Company. The plaintiff alleged that the design of the truck’s door-latch system allowed the door to open in the collision. The court awarded the estate $900,000 in damages “because of the stature of Riley and what he’s done in life, what he’s contributed to his family.” Ford appealed, arguing that the plaintiff had not proved the existence of a reasonable alternative design.

In the Words of the Court … FEW, C.J. [Chief Justice] * * * * * * *

To satisfy the risk-utility test, a plaintiff must meet the requirement of showing a feasible alternative design. * * * The very nature of feasible alternative design evidence entails the manufacturer’s decision to employ one design over another. The weighing of costs and benefits attendant to that decision is the essence of the risk-utility test. [Emphasis added.] [Riley’s 1998 F-150, a model that Ford called the PN96, contained a rod-linkage door-latch system.] The Estate * * * presented evidence of Ford’s own alternative design for a [cable-linkage] door-latch system, which Ford used in F-150 trucks manufactured before Riley’s 1998 model, and which Ford originally incorporated into the design of the 1998 model. * * * *

The Estate’s primary evidence establishing the reasonableness and feasibility of the cable-linkage system was the fact that Ford designed, manufactured, and sold F-150 trucks with the cable-linkage door-latch system only three model years before Riley’s PN96. In addition, the Estate presented extensive evidence concerning Ford’s cable-linkage design. According to [a study conducted by Ford in 1994], the advantages of cables, when compared to rods, included:

packaging—“cable systems require less package space”;

safety—“cable systems are more robust to crash”;

performance—“cable systems provide better performance to the customer”;

and manufacturing—“ cable systems are easier for assembly plants to handle,” “are tolerant to build variations between latch and handle,” “reduce cost and reduce operator dependence,” and “reduce complexity in service.”

The only disadvantage indicated by the report was that “cable systems are from two to three times as expensive as rods,” costing $9.00 per door instead of $4.25 per door if Ford used a rod system. A second report Ford produced sometime after 1993, which compared rod and cable systems, concluded [that] cable systems “improved quality,” were “easier to install,” and were more “robust to door foreshortening.” The only disadvantage listed was “higher cost”—“$0.85/door more than rods.”

These reports demonstrate Ford conducted its own risk-utility analysis. Specifically, Ford considered the costs, safety and functionality associated with the alternative design and concluded the cable-linkage system was a feasible, if not superior, alternative design to the * * * rod system.

Decision and Remedy

A state intermediate appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling. Evidence showed that Ford knew of a reasonable alternative design for the rod-linkage door-latch system. Ford was aware of the system’s safety problems and had conducted a risk-utility analysis of a cable-linkage system, concluding that it was a “feasible, if not superior, alternative.

” The Legal Environment Dimension

By what means did the plaintiff most likely discover the defendant’s studies of an alternative design?

What If the Facts Were Different?

Suppose that the plaintiff had not had the evidence cited in the court’s opinion. How might the plaintiff have met the requirement to show a reasonable alternative design in that situation?

1. Summary the case.

2. What are the fact of the case?

3. What is the legal issue of the case?

4. How did the court decide on the issues?

5. What reasoning did the court use to substantiate their findings? 6. Do you agree or disagree with how the finding by the court in this matter? Please discuss why you decided as you did?

Explanation / Answer

The summary of the case is Riley died due to the unexpected accident caused and the person was died due to the issue with rod-linkage door-latch system. Even though there was an alternate solution to the problem and company did not worry about it and eventually the person had to die.

The legal issue of the case is spouse alleged a case against Ford Company that it happened due to the driver for the damaged caused. Even though there was an alternate solution to the issue, company did not worry about not being able to identify what the problem is and fix it.

The court had decided on the issue looking at the death caused and a kind of compensation to the family who were in loss of the person and however the company did not really accept it and they disputed. Hence court had to go over the issue again and ensure that they have an alternate design to it

The court used the proper details to be used to analyse the situation and made sure that the decision is correct. Also it is to be noticed that there has been a loss of one person and it is a big loss to the family and it is important that the person who caused the damage needs to ensure that the family is compensated and in this case court’s decision is correct.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse R
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.