## Facts

- The decedent was driving a Honda Civic 1200 and was killed in a two-vehicle collision.
- While making a left turn at an intersection, the Honda was struck by an oncoming Ford LTD.
- The impact forced the Honda’s steering column rearward into the decedent’s chest, causing fatal injuries.
- The plaintiff sued parties in the Honda’s chain of sale (Carol and Joan Lutz) on a “second collision” theory, alleging defective design of the steering column and seat-belt system that increased the severity of injury.
- On the seat-belt claim, the plaintiff’s expert found the locking mechanism performed erratically during testing of the actual belt, but the plaintiff did not establish that the decedent was wearing the belt at the time of the crash or that any erratic performance was attributable to design rather than other causes.
- On the steering-column claim, the plaintiff’s expert identified an alternative design concept but did not show that it was feasible for the vehicle or that it would have prevented or reduced the decedent’s injuries in this accident.
- After the plaintiff’s case at trial, the court granted judgment as a matter of law dismissing the claims against the Lutz defendants; the plaintiff appealed as to that dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that the seat-belt system was defectively designed and that a design defect proximately caused or increased the decedent’s injuries.
2. Whether evidence of an asserted safer alternative steering-column design, without proof of feasibility and injury-reduction in the subject crash, was sufficient to submit a design-defect claim to the jury.
3. In an enhanced-injury case, whether the plaintiff must prove the extent of injury attributable to the alleged defect beyond the injury attributable to the collision itself, and whether that burden was met.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the judgment dismissing the complaint against Carol and Joan Lutz.
- The court held that the plaintiff’s evidence was legally insufficient to show a design defect in the seat-belt system or steering column and legally insufficient to show proximate cause of any enhanced injury.
- The court concluded the proof would require juror speculation on both defect and injury causation/apportionment, warranting judgment as a matter of law for the product-liability defendants.

## Legal Principles

- A design-defect claim requires proof, not conjecture, that the challenged injury-producing condition resulted from the product’s design and that the design defect was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.
- Evidence that a component functioned irregularly, without proof tying the irregularity to design features (and not other causes), is insufficient to establish a design defect.
- Proof of a safer alternative design must include evidence of feasibility (e.g., testing/prototype evidence or proof that the design is used in comparable products) and must be connected to injury reduction under the conditions of the accident.
- In second-collision (enhanced-injury) cases, the plaintiff bears the burden to prove the extent of injury attributable to the alleged defect beyond the harm caused by the collision itself; failure to provide a non-speculative basis for that apportionment defeats the claim.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal of the design-defect claims because the plaintiff did not present non-speculative evidence that either the seat-belt system or steering column was defectively designed, that any defect was a proximate cause of increased harm, or that the alleged defect measurably worsened the decedent’s injuries beyond those caused by the crash.


Burgos v. Lutz, 128 A.D.2d 496 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1987)