## Facts

- Nelson Cruz bought a used 1996 Dodge Grand Caravan from Ricky Smith Pontiac GMC, Inc. in December 1998; the vehicle was manufactured by DaimlerChrysler Motors Corp.
- Cruz alleged a dealership employee represented that the minivan was safe and had never been in an accident; Cruz later contended it had been in at least one prior accident.
- On or about December 30, 2001, while the vehicle was stationary and Cruz was cleaning its interior, both front airbags unexpectedly deployed and injured him.
- Nelson and Elaine Cruz sued on December 28, 2004, asserting negligence, strict products liability, and negligent misrepresentation; Elaine asserted loss of consortium.
- DaimlerChrysler was dismissed from the case following its bankruptcy filing, leaving the dealership as the sole defendant.
- The plaintiffs later amended to add a res ipsa loquitur theory.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs could rely on res ipsa loquitur to infer negligence by the used-car dealer for an airbag deployment occurring about three years after sale.
2. Whether the summary-judgment record created a genuine issue of material fact on negligence and negligent misrepresentation against the dealer absent direct proof of dealer fault.
3. Whether the loss-of-consortium claim could proceed if the underlying tort claims failed.

## Decision

- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the dealership on all counts.
- The court held res ipsa loquitur did not apply because the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently eliminate other responsible causes and failed to show any inferred negligence fell within the scope of the dealer’s duty.
- The court upheld dismissal of negligence and negligent-misrepresentation claims due to insufficient evidence of a causal link between the dealer’s conduct and the later airbag deployment.
- Because Nelson Cruz’s claims failed, Elaine Cruz’s derivative loss-of-consortium claim also failed.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rhode Island law (Restatement (Second) of Torts approach), res ipsa loquitur requires: (1) an event that ordinarily does not occur absent negligence; (2) sufficient elimination of other responsible causes; and (3) that the inferred negligent act falls within the scope of the defendant’s duty to the plaintiff.
- Satisfaction of the first element alone is insufficient; the inference of negligence does not arise if alternative causes remain plausible on the record.
- A substantial time lapse and loss of the defendant’s control over the instrumentality may prevent a plaintiff from eliminating other responsible causes for res ipsa purposes.
- A used-car dealer is not treated as an insurer against latent defects manifesting years after sale absent evidence the dealer caused, knew of, or should have discovered the defect.
- Loss of consortium is derivative and fails when the injured spouse’s underlying tort claims are resolved against them.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for the used-car dealer because the plaintiffs could not use res ipsa loquitur to bridge the evidentiary gap created by a three-year interval and multiple possible intervening causes, and they offered no other evidence tying the dealer’s conduct or alleged misstatements to the later airbag deployment injury.


Cruz v. DaimlerChrysler Motors Corp., 66 A.3d 446 (R.I. 2013)