## Facts

- A 1987 Ford Bronco II 4x2 (manufactured in 1986) rolled over in Colleton County, South Carolina, injuring a minor passenger who was ejected.
- The driver, Cheryl Hale, briefly took her eyes off the road to quiet children in the vehicle; the Bronco drifted, a wheel left the roadway, and Hale overcorrected, leading to rollover.
- No occupants were wearing seatbelts.
- The injured minor’s guardian sued Ford Motor Company and Hale.
- Claims against Ford included (1) a defective rear seatbelt sleeve and (2) a “handling and stability” design defect alleging an undue rollover propensity after foreseeable driver overcorrection.
- The jury found Ford and Hale liable and awarded $16 million in actual damages and $15 million in punitive damages.
- Ford appealed, challenging the design-defect framework, admission of post-manufacture evidence, closing argument and punitive damages, and the jury’s apportionment of fault.

## Issues

1. Whether a design-defect plaintiff must prove a feasible reasonable alternative design and that it would have prevented the product from being unreasonably dangerous.
2. Whether South Carolina design-defect law should apply consumer expectations, risk-utility, or a combined approach, and how that choice affects proof requirements.
3. Whether post-manufacture documents and testing unknown or unavailable at the time of manufacture were admissible in evaluating defectiveness and culpability.
4. Whether closing argument improperly appealed to passion and prejudice by urging punishment for harms to nonparties, affecting punitive damages.
5. Whether the jury could apportion liability between a manufacturer and a negligent driver under the governing joint-tortfeasor rules.

## Decision

- Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial.
- Held that South Carolina design-defect claims are governed by a risk-utility framework and require proof of a feasible alternative design that would have prevented the product from being unreasonably dangerous.
- Held that the handling-and-stability design-defect claim was supported by sufficient evidence, including expert testimony regarding an alternative suspension design, to be submitted to the jury.
- Held the trial court erred by admitting post-manufacture evidence not known or reasonably knowable at the time of manufacture; the error was prejudicial.
- Found plaintiff’s closing argument improperly inflammatory in urging punishment for potential harm to others, contributing to reversible error affecting punitive damages.
- Held the jury’s apportionment of responsibility between Ford and Hale was inconsistent with the applicable joint-tortfeasor regime and should not have been submitted in that form.

## Legal Principles

- A design-defect plaintiff bears the burden to prove the product’s design was unreasonably dangerous.
- In South Carolina, proof of a feasible reasonable alternative design is a required element of a design-defect claim; the plaintiff must show the alternative would have prevented the product from being unreasonably dangerous.
- Risk-utility is the controlling design-defect analysis; consumer expectations may be considered within, but do not replace, the risk-utility inquiry.
- Evidence used to judge the reasonableness of a design decision must be temporally anchored to what was known or reasonably knowable at the time of manufacture; later-acquired information may be excluded when unfairly prejudicial.
- Punitive-damages advocacy must focus on the defendant’s conduct as it relates to the plaintiff’s harm; arguments inviting punishment for generalized harms to nonparties are improper.
- Where joint-tortfeasor rules control, a jury should not be instructed to apportion liability by percentages in a manner inconsistent with that regime.

## Conclusion

The court clarified that South Carolina design-defect law applies a risk-utility standard requiring proof of a feasible alternative design, upheld submission of the handling-and-stability claim to the jury, but ordered a new trial because post-manufacture evidence, improper punitive-damages argument, and erroneous fault apportionment undermined the verdict.


Branham v. Ford Motor Co., 390 S.C. 203, 701 S.E.2d 5 (S.C. 2010)