FEASIBILITY AND PRACTICALITY STANDARD UPHELD AS APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSES $13.4 MILLION PRODUCT LIABILITY JUDGMENT

In the March 18, 2008 decision of Boyle v. Ford Motor Co., et al., A-0889-06T3, the Appellate Division overturned a $13.4 Million jury verdict against Ford Motor Company, holding that a manufacturer cannot be held liable for safety defects in its vehicle when the vehicle is merely an incomplete product specifically meant to be completed by its purchaser.

Michael Boyle, the plaintiff, was operating a vehicle that collided at approximately 55 miles per hour with the rear of a truck owned by New Jersey Boom & Erectors (NJBE). On impact, the rear bumper of the truck snapped off and fell away; as a result, Mr. Boyle’s vehicle was almost entirely wedged under the truck’s rear body, pushing the hood into the passenger compartment and shearing off the roof. Mr. Boyle sustained serious injuries, including brain injuries which left him with permanent physical, cognitive, and psychological impairment.

Ford Motor Company manufactures the F-800 chassis cab, which it designed as a generic vehicle to be retrofitted and otherwise altered to meet the vehicle owner's use-specific needs. The chassis cab is manufactured without a rear bumper guard. NJBE had contracted with  Garden State Engine & Equipment Company (GSEE) to attach a flatbed and tow crane on the F-800 chassis cab. GSEE also designed and installed a rear bumper guard specifically intended to prevent the type of “burrowing” accident that occurred.

Following his accident, Mr. Boyle sued Ford, GSEE, and NJBE, under the New Jersey Product Liability Act, alleging among other things that the F-800 was defectively designed when it left Ford’s control without a rear bumper guard and that Ford should have included a rear bumper guard that could be installed by the end-user. A jury found Ford and GSEE liable, and even after the jury award was reduced, the court entered a final judgment against Ford of almost $13.4 Million.

On appeal, Ford argued that the F-800 chassis cab that it sells is merely an incomplete component of the finished truck involved in the accident, with many changes being made by the buyer that were unforeseeable to Ford. As a result, it was inappropriate to impose a legal duty on Ford in this situation. The Appellate Division agreed, and overturned the decision of the trial court. The Court expressed support for the “feasibility and practicality” standard established by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Zaza v. Marquess & Nell, Inc., 144 N.J. 34 (1996), while also taking elements of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability.

According to the Court, the injuries caused in the accident were not directly related to a defect in the chassis cab. Additionally, Ford did not participate in the integration of the chassis cab into the functional truck that was involved in the accident. As a result, it was neither feasible nor practical for Ford to be responsible for safeguarding its product in a way that would have prevented the injuries in this case.

The entire purpose of a product such as the F-800 is to be a base model, capable of being customized for a variety of uses. Both federal regulations and long-established industry practices stand for the idea that the end-user is in the best position to know its own needs, as well as to meet any safety regulations. As a result, liability rightfully rests with the end-user, and not with a component manufacturer.

Sean Strichek, Esq.