Jury Verdict In Favor Of Truck Manufacturer Reversed.

A 15-year-old boy threw a 2.5 pound of concrete rock from a freeway overpass, penetrating the windshield of a truck driven by plaintiff, striking plaintiff on the head and causing great bodily injuries. The boy pled guilty and was sentenced to 12 years in prison. Plaintiff and his wife, and later only his wife, who proceeded with the action after her husband died from his injuries, brought an action against the truck manufacturer claiming the truck was defective because its penetration resistance was inadequate. The case proceeded to trial on the question of whether the windshield was defective due to its steep rake angle. The manufacturer argued it was absolved of liability because the 15-year-old’s criminal conduct constituted a superseding cause of the injuries.  The jury accepted that defense and the jury verdict entered judgement in favor of the manufacturer. The appellate court reversed, stating:  “We conclude the trial court erred in instructing that a heightened foreseeability was required and the error was prejudicial because the special jury verdict form precluded the jury from considering whether the risk of chunks of concrete hitting the truck’s windshield was a reasonably foreseeable road hazard. We accept [the manufacturer’s] concession that federal law is not preemptive on the issue of whether glass-plastic would have been a safer design for the windshield.” Collins v. Navistar, Inc.  (Cal. App. Third Dist.; March 29, 2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1486.