YUN v. FORD MOTOR CO.
Case Date: 01/18/1996
Docket No: SYLLABUS
|
(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for
the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court.
Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized).
(NOTE: This Court wrote no full opinion in this case. Rather, the Court's reversal of the
judgment of the Appellate Division is based substantially on the reasons expressed in
JUDGE BAIME'S partial dissenting opinion below.)
Argued October 11, 1995 -- Decided January 18, 1996
PER CURIAM
On the late evening of November 27, 1988, sixty-five-year-old Hak Yun Chang (Chang) was a
passenger in the 1987 Ford van owned and driven by his daughter Yo Cho Shim (Yo). They were
travelling northbound on the local lanes of the Garden State Parkway when the plastic cover, spare tire
and part of the support bracket that was screwed to the rear of the van fell off the van, rolled across
both lanes of traffic, and came to rest against the guardrail separating the Parkway lanes. Yo safely
stopped the van on the right berm of the highway. Chang exited the vehicle, ran across two lanes of the
dark, rain-slicked roadway, and retrieved the bald spare tire and parts. He was struck by a vehicle
operated by Precious Linderman as he tried to return to the van.
The van was manufactured by Ford Motor Company (Ford). It was then sent to Universal Motor
Coach (Universal) where the van's chassis was converted and spare tire assembly installed before it was
shipped to Castle Ford (Castle), the dealer. Yo purchased the van from Castle in its completed state.
Miller Manufacturing Corporation (Miller) manufactured the spare tire assembly.
On October 27, 1988, one month prior to the accident, Kim's Mobile Service (Kim's) had
serviced the van. Kim's notified Yo and Chang that the bracket holding the spare tire was damaged or
"bent down," the result of a previous motor vehicle accident. Chang and Yo told Kim's not to repair the
apparatus because they were waiting for parts and the determination of insurance coverage.
Gloria Yun, as administrator of Chang's estate, and Nam Yi Yun, Chang's widow (hereinafter
referred collectively as Yun), brought suit against Ford, Castle, Universal, Kim's and Miller, claiming that
the apparatus connecting the spare tire to the rear of the van was defective. Yun alleges that: Ford, and
Castle as the dealer, negligently manufactured, distributed and warranted Yo's van and its parts;
Universal negligently installed, assembled, manufactured and distributed the conversion kit to the
defectively manufactured 1987 Ford van; Kim's improperly serviced the 1987 van and caused a
hazardous condition to occur; and Miller manufactured the defective spare tire carrier. Also named in
the complaint were Precious and Charles Linderman, the driver and owner, respectively, of the other
automobile. The Linderman's are not parties to this appeal. Ford, Castle, Universal, Kim and Miller moved for summary judgment, contending that Yun failed to demonstrate that defendants' negligence, if any, proximately caused Chang's injuries. The trial court granted the motions, finding that, as a matter of law, Chang's actions broke the causal chain. Yun appealed and a majority of the Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the trial court. The panel found that Kim's did not breach any duty owed to Chang because Kim's alerted Chang and Yo to the problem and was told not to make any repairs. The majority reasoned that, pursuant to the Products Liability Act, Yun was required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the product causing the harm was not reasonably fit, suitable or safe for its intended purpose and that the alleged defect
proximately caused the injuries sustained by Chang. The panel noted that proximate cause need only
be a cause which sets off a foreseeable sequence of consequences, unbroken by any superseding
cause, and which is a substantial factor in producing the particular injury.
The majority determined that, even assuming Yun's allegations of alleged defect to be true, logic
and fairness dictated that liability should not extend to injuries received as a result of Chang's senseless
decision to cross the Parkway under such dangerous conditions. According to the majority, the alleged
defect in the spare tire assembly did not injure Chang; his injury occurred after he decided to leave the
vehicle and cross the Parkway in both directions. Chang's and Yo's joint decision, one month before
the accident, not to repair the allegedly defective assembly, in conjunction with Chang's flagrant
disregard for his personal safety and the law, constitute intervening, superseding causes that broke the
chain of causation. The majority also held that, as a matter of law, it was not reasonably foreseeable to
defendants that this chain of events would occur. Therefore, the alleged product defect was not a
proximate cause of Chang's injuries.
Judge Baime dissented in part, finding Yun's submissions relating to proximate cause were
sufficient in respect of Castle, Miller and Universal to require the denial of summary judgment as to those
defendants. Judge Baime was of the view that reasonable persons might differ in respect of whether
Chang's death was proximately caused by the defective spare tire assembly. According to Judge
Baime, a jury could find that it was reasonably foreseeable that the tire would dislodge and fall onto the
roadway while the van was in operation and that the operator or passenger might sustain injuries in his
or her attempt to retrieve the tire assembly. In addition, a jury could reasonably find that the harm that
resulted was not proximately caused by the defective assembly and that fairness and logic demand that
defendants be absolved from responsibility. Therefore, because he believed the issue to be reasonably
debatable, he found summary judgment as to those defendants inappropriate. Judge Baime did concur
with the majority's conclusion that the claims against Ford and Kim's should be dismissed. Thus, the
dismissal of Ford and Kim's is not the subject of this appeal.
Yun appealed as of right based on the dissent in the Appellate Division.
HELD: Judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed substantially for the reasons expressed in the
dissenting portion of Judge Baime's opinion in the Appellate Division. Because reasonable
minds could differ regarding the foreseeability of Hak Yun Chang's injuries and whether the
alleged defect was the proximate cause of the injuries, the grant of summary judgment as to
Castle Ford, Universal Motor Coach and Miller Manufacturing Corporation was inappropriate.
GARIBALDI, J., dissenting, is of the view that the conduct of Chang was highly extraordinary and
constituted an intervening, superseding cause. Therefore, as a matter of law, the manufacturer of the
defective spare tire bracket assembly is not liable for Chang's injuries. Defendants could not have
reasonably foreseen Chang's decision to run across the Parkway on a rain-slicked highway twice that
night to retrieve a bald tire and parts of a broken tire assembly. The danger of crossing a major
highway in such conditions is not only obvious, but prohibited. The Legislature has enacted laws
prohibiting the crossing of divided roads, demonstrating society's conclusion that such acts are
dangerous, unreasonable. Chang's disregard for his own safety was the proximate cause of his tragic
injuries and constituted an intervening, superseding cause that shattered the chain of causation. Justice
Garibaldi notes that in Brill, the Court encouraged trial courts to grant summary judgment when the
proper circumstances present themselves. This proper circumstances are presented here.
CHIEF JUSTICE WILENTZ and JUSTICES HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN, STEIN, and
COLEMAN join in the PER CURIAM opinion. JUSTICE GARIBALDI has filed a separate dissenting
opinion.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
GLORIA YUN, Administrator ad
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, KIM'S
Defendants,
and
CASTLE FORD, UNIVERSAL MOTOR
Defendants-Respondents.
Argued October 11, 1995 -- Decided January 18, 1996
On appeal from the Superior Court, Appellate
Division, whose opinion is reported at
276 N.J. Super. 142 (1994).
Seth Malkin argued the cause for appellants
(Ferdinand & Klayman, attorneys; Lane M.
Ferdinand, on the brief).
William T. Connell argued the cause for
respondent Castle Ford (Dwyer, Connell &
Lisbona, attorneys; Thomas R. Walters, on the
brief).
James T. Boyle, Jr., argued the cause for
respondent Universal Motor Coach (Satterlee
Stephens Burke & Burke, attorneys; Frances
Marie Bradley, on the brief).
Paul F. Clark argued the cause for respondent
Miller Manufacturing Corporation, etc. (Wade
Clark Mulcahy, attorneys).
PER CURIAM
CHIEF JUSTICE WILENTZ and JUSTICES HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN,
STEIN, and COLEMAN join in the PER CURIAM opinion. JUSTICE
GARIBALDI has filed a separate dissenting opinion.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
GLORIA YUN, Administrator ad
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, KIM'S
Defendants,
and
CASTLE FORD, UNIVERSAL MOTOR
Defendants-Respondents.
In this appeal of a products liability action, the only issue is whether the jury could have found that the alleged defect in the spare tire bracket assembly was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. Proximate cause will be decided as a matter of law when "highly extraordinary" events or conduct taking place after the negligent act constitute intervening, superseding causes of injury. Caputzal v. The Lindsay Co. 48 N.J. 69, 78, 79 (1966). The conduct of plaintiff, Chang Hak Yun (Yun), was "highly extraordinary" and constituted an intervening, superseding cause. Therefore, as a matter of law, defendant, the manufacturer of the defective spare tire bracket assembly, is not liable for Mr. Yun's injuries. Defendant could not have reasonably foreseen Mr. Yun's accident. I would affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division. 276 N.J. Super. l42 (l994). An essential element of proximate cause is foreseeability. When injuries resulting from negligence are not foreseeable, there can be no finding of proximate cause. See Caputzal, supra, 48 N.J. 69 (finding that water softener manufactured, sold and installed by the defendant was not proximate cause of injury suffered by the plaintiff, who on finding that his bathroom faucet emitted brownish rusty colored water, became emotionally upset and suffered a heart attack.); Brown v. United States Stove Co., 98 N.J. 155 (1984) (holding that manufacturing design defect of free-standing space heater that was deliberately altered to operate beyond safe capacity, was not proximate cause of harm
that resulted when heater exploded and set plaintiff on fire);
Jensen v. Schooley's Mountain Inn, Inc.,
216 N.J. Super. 79, 82
(App. Div.), certif. denied, l08 N.J. l8l (l987) (holding that
serving alcohol to visibly intoxicated person was not proximate
cause of injuries sustained by decedent, who subsequently drove
car eight miles, parked, climbed tree, fell out of tree, rolled
into river and drowned); Vallillo v. Muskin Corp.,
212 N.J.
Super. 155, 162 (1986), certif. denied. lll N.J. 624 (1988)
(holding that pool manufacturer's failure to provide adequate
warnings against diving was not proximate cause of any injuries
because "a person experienced in the use of the product, who has
indicated by his actions that he recognized that his conduct runs
the risk of a particular danger, will not be permitted to absolve
himself from responsibility for an objectively anticipatable
injury resulting therefrom").
before the accident that the spare tire assembly had been damaged
in a prior accident and should be repaired and replaced. Despite
that warning, the repairs were not made and the Yun family
continued to drive the car. Then, the spare tire assembly, as
predicted, fell off Yun's car. Neither the tire nor the car was
a danger to any motorist. Indeed, the car was off the road and
could be driven home. Mr. Yun however, the sixty-five year old
plaintiff, ran across the Garden State Parkway, a rain slicked
highway twice, at night, to retrieve a bald tire and parts of a
broken tire assembly. These events "transgress[ed] the judicial
line beyond which liability should not be extended as a matter of
fairness and policy." Jensen, supra, 216 N.J. Super. at 82.
Ford Motor Co.,
603 F.2d 1240 (1979). In Peck, a truck
manufactured by Ford broke down in the right lane of a highway
some time between 8:30 and 9:00 a.m. Id. at 1242. The
plaintiff, driving another truck, approached the disabled Ford
vehicle around noon. His view was obstructed due to a van
travelling in front of him. When the van pulled out of the right
lane to avoid the disabled Ford, the plaintiff did not have time
to stop or change lanes and crashed into the truck, sustaining
serious injuries. Id. at 1242. The Peck court found, as a
matter of law, that no proximate cause existed between the defect
that caused the Ford truck to break down and the plaintiff's
subsequent collision with the disabled vehicle. Id. at 1244.
The Seventh Circuit explained that ". . . the defect here did not
cause any damage at that time." Ibid. "[A]fter the truck came
to a stop on the highway and other vehicles in the area had
safely cleared the stopped truck, Ford had no further duty on the
facts of this case to prevent harm" because the tort had "`spent
its force.'" Ibid. (citation omitted).
It was Mr. Yun's subsequent actions that caused his
injuries. He assumed an obvious and substantial risk when he
crossed the Garden State Parkway on that dark, rainy night. The
danger of crossing a major highway under such conditions is
obvious. The Legislature has enacted laws prohibiting the
crossing of divided roads. N.J.S.A. 39:4-34 provides in part:
"It shall be unlawful for a pedestrian to cross any highway
having roadways separated by a medial barrier, except where
provision is made for pedestrian crossing." Likewise, N.J.A.C.
19:8-1.9(b) prohibits pedestrian traffic on the Parkway, "except
on sidewalks, footpaths and other areas specifically designated
by the Authority for that purpose." I cite those laws not as
evidence that Mr. Yun violated the law, but as proof that society
has concluded that such actions are dangerous, unreasonable and,
therefore, prohibited. His disregard for his safety was the
proximate cause of his tragic injuries and constituted an
intervening, superseding cause that shattered the chain of
causation from the defendant. As the court observed in Peck:
As a matter of law, defendant should not be liable. That
position is consistent with the Restatement (Second) of Torts §
435 (2) (l965):
The actor's conduct may be held not to be a
legal cause of harm to another where after
the event and looking back from the harm to
the actor's negligent conduct, it appears to
the court highly extraordinary that it should
have brought about the harm.
See also William L. Prosser, Law of Torts, (Handbook Series),
Sec. 4l, at 240 (3d. ed. 1964) (observing that "[a]s a practical
matter, legal responsibility must be limited to those causes
which are so closely connected with the result and of such
significance that the law is justified in imposing liability").
the proper circumstances present themselves." Ibid. This case
presents the proper circumstances.
[Yun, supra, 276 N.J. Super. at 155-56]
Applying the summary judgment standard, I find as did the
trial court and the majority of the Appellate Division, that the
record amply demonstrates that defendant's defective spare tire
assembly was not the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries.
NO. A-30 SEPTEMBER TERM 1995
GLORIA YUN, etc., et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants,
and
CASTLE FORD, et al.,
Defendants-Respondents.
DECIDED January 18, 1996
|