## Facts

- Silhadi Alami drove alone in a Volkswagen Jetta on the Saw Mill River Parkway in Yonkers, New York, left an exit ramp, and struck a steel utility pole, dying from internal injuries.
- Alami’s blood alcohol content exceeded the statutory limit; the estate did not dispute that intoxication caused the collision.
- The estate asserted a products-liability “enhanced-injury” (crashworthiness) theory, alleging design defects increased the severity of injuries beyond those attributable to the crash.
- The estate’s expert opined the Jetta’s floorboard buckled upward due to inadequate structural reinforcement, throwing Alami forward and causing fatal thoracic and abdominal injuries.
- Volkswagen sought summary judgment on the grounds that Alami’s intoxication caused the crash and that public policy should bar recovery based on unlawful conduct, without directly attacking the sufficiency of defect or enhanced-injury causation proof.

## Issues

1. Whether New York’s unlawful-conduct public-policy doctrine bars an enhanced-injury products-liability claim when the decedent’s drunk driving caused the initial collision.
2. Whether a vehicle manufacturer’s duty to design a reasonably safe vehicle for foreseeable crashes exists independently of a driver’s criminal misconduct that caused the crash.
3. Whether comparative fault principles, rather than a categorical public-policy bar, should address the decedent’s intoxication in a crashworthiness action.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the order affirming dismissal and denied Volkswagen’s motion for summary judgment, reinstating the action.
- The court held that public policy did not bar the enhanced-injury claim because the alleged design defect concerned the extent of injury, not the cause of the crash.
- The court limited prior unlawful-conduct precedents to cases where the illegal act is the direct and essential basis for imposing the claimed duty and is tightly connected to the injury.
- The court concluded that the decedent’s intoxication is addressed through comparative fault, leaving any reduction of damages to the factfinder rather than foreclosing suit as a matter of law.
- The dissent would have applied the unlawful-conduct doctrine to bar the claim, reasoning that permitting recovery would conflict with public condemnation of drunk driving.

## Legal Principles

- In crashworthiness (enhanced-injury) litigation, a manufacturer may be liable for design defects that increase the severity of injuries even when the plaintiff’s conduct caused the initial crash.
- The unlawful-conduct public-policy bar is confined to situations where the plaintiff’s illegal act is serious and directly tied to the injury such that recognizing the asserted duty would contradict public policy.
- A manufacturer’s duty to design and manufacture a reasonably safe vehicle for foreseeable collisions exists independently of a driver’s unlawful conduct that causes the collision.
- Comparative fault principles generally govern the plaintiff’s culpable conduct in allocating or reducing damages, rather than operating as an automatic bar to recovery.
- Summary judgment is improper where public policy is the only basis advanced to defeat an enhanced-injury claim and there are triable factual questions as to defect-related injury enhancement.

## Conclusion

The court held that a decedent’s drunk driving, while potentially significant for comparative fault, does not categorically bar an enhanced-injury products-liability claim alleging that a vehicle’s defective design worsened crash injuries; the estate could proceed to litigate defect and injury-enhancement causation.


Alami v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 97 N.Y.2d 281, 766 N.E.2d 574 (N.Y. 2002)