The Parameters of Enhanced Injury Law in Colorado
| Publication year | 1994 |
| Pages | 1285 |
| Citation | Vol. 23 No. 6 Pg. 1285 |
1994, June, Pg. 1285. The Parameters of Enhanced Injury Law in Colorado
Twenty-six years after it was first recognized as a valid theory of tort liability by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, the doctrine variously known as "enhanced injury," "second collision" or "crashworthiness" has now been adopted by nearly every state in the United States.(fn1) The above terms are often used interchangeably to refer to the broad spectrum of cases based on claims that injuries were enhanced due to a product defect, although the product itself was not a cause of the original accident. Enhanced injury liability is one of the most highly litigated and costly areas of tort law today. This is particularly true within the automotive industry,(fn2) and a successful claim can often result in the imposition of multimillion dollar liability.
The substantive law of enhanced injury is still rapidly evolving. One of the most hotly contested issues today concerns whether the plaintiff or defendant should bear the burden of proving the increase in injuries caused by the alleged design defect. This article explores the development of the enhanced injury doctrine in Colorado, discusses treatment of the doctrine in drafts of the new Restatement of Torts ("new Restatement") and attempts to predict whether Colorado would follow the controversial shift in the burden of proof contained in the proposed drafts of the new Restatement. Many of the footnotes in this article give related citations for readers wishing to explore these subjects in greater depth.
The enhanced injury theory was first adopted by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1968 in Larsen v. General Motors Corp.(fn3) The plaintiff in Larsen sustained severe injuries in a head-on collision when the steering mechanism of his car allegedly thrust rearward, striking him in the head. The plaintiff argued that the steering assembly was defectively designed, causing him to receive additional injuries or more severe injuries than he would have otherwise received in the collision absent the defect.
Rejecting Evans v. General Motors Corp.,(fn4) the Eighth Circuit held that manufacturers have a duty to use reasonable care in the design of vehicles to avoid subjecting users to unreasonable risks of injury in the event of a collision. The court emphasized that a manufacturer's duty extends to producing a product that is reasonably fit for its intended use and free of hidden defects. Central to the court's holding was its recognition that collisions, with or without the fault of the driver, are a clearly foreseeable and statistically inevitable result of the "intended use" of automobiles.(fn5)
The Larsen court spoke only in terms of unreasonable risks of enhanced injury and disclaimed any duty to design accident-proof vehicles. Further, the court specifically pointed out that any design defect not causing the accident would not subject the manufacturer to liability for the entire damage, but only
Recognizing that apportionment of injuries or damages may at times be difficult, the court nevertheless stated that the obstacles are not insurmountable, noting that similar apportionments are performed with regularity under comparative negligence statutes.(fn7)for that portion of the damage or injury caused by the defective design over and above [that which] probably would have occurred as a result of the impact or collision absent the defective design.(fn6)
The crashworthiness doctrine was first recognized in Colorado by the Colorado Court of Appeals in 1978 in Roberts v. May.(fn8) The plaintiff in Roberts, a passenger in a car driven by her husband, was injured in a rear-end collision when her face struck the dashboard, fracturing a number of her facial bones. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was wearing only her lap safety belt, although the car was equipped with both lap and shoulder restraints. The plaintiff claimed that the design of the car's dashboard enhanced the injuries she would have sustained absent the alleged defect.
In reversing a summary judgment ruling in favor of the manufacturer, the Court of Appeals held that Restatement
(Second) of Torts§ 402(a) strict liability applies to an automobile design defect which, although not contributing to the collision itself, may have enhanced the injuries sustained. The court based its decision on the "pragmatic observation that collisions and accidents are natural, foreseeable consequences of automobile use," citing Larsen.(fn9) However, the court also emphasized that:
Manufacturers are not required to produce automobiles with the "strength and crash-damage resistance features of an M-2 army tank." The critical question is whether, under all of the surrounding circumstances, a manufacturer has created an unreasonable risk of increasing the harm in the event of the statistically inevitable collision.(fn10)
Application of the enhanced injury doctrine under Colorado law was next addressed in 1981 by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Curtis v. General Motors Corp.(fn11) Curtis was seriously injured when he was partially ejected (he was not wearing his seatbelt) from his 1973 Chevy Blazer during a rollover accident that occurred on an icy country road. Curtis alleged that the vehicle was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous because its removable fiberglass top cracked and separated from the body of the car during the...
To continue reading
Request your trial