## Facts

- Kirk Daly, a 36-year-old attorney, drove a GM-manufactured Opel southbound on the Harbor Freeway in Los Angeles early on October 31, 1970.
- The vehicle struck a metal divider fence, spun, the driver’s door opened, and Daly was ejected, suffering fatal head injuries.
- The decedent’s family sued GM and related defendants under strict products liability, alleging a defective door latch/lock design that foreseeably opened in a collision and caused ejection (enhanced-injury theory).
- GM introduced evidence that the car had seat belts and door locks that, if used, would have retained Daly in the vehicle, and that Daly was intoxicated and was not using the seat belt or door lock.
- The trial court admitted the intoxication and nonuse evidence over objection, and the jury returned a verdict for GM.

## Issues

1. Whether comparative fault principles apply to actions founded on strict products liability.
2. Whether evidence of “compensating” safety devices included in the vehicle is admissible in a design-defect strict liability case.
3. Whether, on this record and under the instructions given, evidence of the decedent’s intoxication and failure to use available safety devices was properly admitted and used.

## Decision

- The court held that comparative fault applies to strict products liability; plaintiff fault that is a legal cause of injury reduces, but does not bar, recovery.
- The court held that evidence of compensating safety devices installed by the manufacturer is admissible to evaluate whether the product, considered as an integrated whole, was defectively designed.
- The court reversed the defense verdict and remanded for a new trial because, in the context of the trial and instructions, the intoxication and nonuse evidence was used in a manner that created prejudicial error.

## Legal Principles

- Comparative fault governs allocation of loss in strict products liability when the plaintiff’s conduct is also a legal cause of the harm; damages are apportioned rather than denied outright.
- Strict products liability defines the defendant’s responsibility for a defective product; comparative fault addresses how responsibility is shared when plaintiff conduct contributes to the injury.
- “Ordinary” negligent conduct by a plaintiff (including conduct contributing to the accident or to enhanced injuries) is generally subject to comparative apportionment in strict liability.
- Assumption of risk that is negligent in character is treated within comparative fault, though a fully voluntary and knowing encounter with a known defect may remain a complete defense in limited circumstances.
- In design-defect litigation, the product may be assessed as an integrated whole; manufacturer-provided compensating safety features may be considered in determining defect.
- Plaintiff-conduct evidence must be properly limited to apportionment; using such evidence in a way that effectively reinstates an all-or-nothing contributory-negligence bar is erroneous.

## Conclusion

The California Supreme Court extended comparative fault to strict products liability, permitting plaintiff fault to reduce damages while preserving liability for defective products, and it ordered a new trial because plaintiff-conduct evidence was admitted and framed in a way that was prejudicial under the trial’s contributory-negligence-oriented presentation.


Daly v. Gen. Motors Corp., 20 Cal. 3d 725 (1978)