GM Trailer Design Requirements Not a "Design"
December 4, 2001
The Eighth Circuit recently declined to extend liability under strict
liability or negligence theories in two companion cases against an auto
manufacturer when the plaintiff failed to show that the auto manufacturer was
engaged in anything more than a legitimate practice to protect its business
interests. Ford v. GACS, Inc., 265 F.3d 670 (8th Cir. 2001); Long v.
Cottrell, Inc., 265 F.3d 663 (8th Cir. 2001). Both of these cases arise out
of injuries sustained by drivers of automobile transport trailers during the
course of their employment for an independent hauling company that General
Motors hired to transport its cars and trucks to various dealerships.
General Motors did not manufacture the auto transport trailers. Rather, the
crux of plaintiffs' claims against General Motors was that it prohibited
modifications to the trailers or the use of certain load securement systems
other than the system in use on these trailers. In 1982, General Motors
established a committee with independent haulers and trailer manufacturers to
discuss issues related to damage-free shipment of its products. Plaintiffs
additionally claimed that General Motors' mere creation of and involvement in
this committee constituted a negligent undertaking to design hauling equipment.
The Eighth Circuit rejected both of these arguments.
Missouri courts follow the rules of strict liability in tort as set out in
§402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965).1 Therefore, liability is
imposed only on those who are in the chain of distribution that provided the
injury-causing product or that placed the injury-causing product in the stream
of commerce.
The Eighth Circuit found that General Motors' purported involvement with the
allegedly defective product did not rise to a level such that General Motors
could be deemed "in the chain of commerce." General Motors used
trailers operated by independent companies to haul its cars and trucks to places
where consumers purchased them. As such, General Motors was a customer of the
independent auto haulers who obtained the auto hauling trailers from the trailer
manufacturers. As a customer of the independent hauler, General Motors specified
the manner in which its vehicles were to be shipped. By doing so, General Motors
did not become a designer or manufacturer of the trailer or become part of the
chain of commerce responsible for transferring trailers in the course of its
business. To hold otherwise would lead to the absurd consequence of imposing
liability on large companies simply because they take reasonable steps to ensure
that their products are shipped without damage.
Plaintiffs also contended that General Motors may be liable on a theory of
negligent performance of an assumed duty. In order to prevail, plaintiff must
show that the party intended "to completely subsume or supplant the duty of
the other party in order to incur liability... . It is not enough to intend to
supplement the duty of the other party." Plant v. Union Electric Co.,
899 S.W.2d 129, 131 (Mo. App. 1995) (emphasis in original).
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court decision that General Motors
did not owe a duty to the plaintiffs in these cases. General Motors did not
render services to the drivers of the auto haulers, which would be necessary for
the protection of the drivers or the drivers' things. General Motors did not
train the drivers in any way, much less provide safety training. Although
General Motors may have participated in the approval process of tie-down systems
used to secure its vehicles, the reason for this participation was concern about
damage to its vehicles, not to ensure the safety of users of the system. A party
cannot be said to have assumed a duty to protect such users simply by seeking to
protect its own property interests. By participating in the design process to
ensure that the product met its needs, General Motors did not replace the
manufacturer's duty to design and produce a safe product.
These decisions have significant implications with respect to the way in
which General Motors and other original equipment manufacturers will conduct
their businesses in the future. It certainly is clear that the courts do not
plan to impose a generic common law duty for merely taking reasonable steps to
ensure the damage-free delivery of products.
1Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts provides:
- One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous
to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for
physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his
property, if
- the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and
- it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial
change in the condition in which it is sold.
- The rule stated in Subsection applies although
- the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of
his product, and
- the user or consumer has not brought the product from or entered into any
contractual relation with the seller.
return to article