## Facts

- Clifford Harris, a passenger in a Ford vehicle, was injured after the driver allegedly drove while intoxicated and at excessive speed, left the road, and hit a tree.
- After the initial impact, the vehicle allegedly caught fire and exploded.
- Harris and Karen D’Amario sued Ford, alleging a defective fuel pump relay switch continued supplying fuel after the crash, causing a post-impact fire and “enhanced” injuries.
- Plaintiffs sought damages only for the enhanced injuries from the fire/explosion, not for injuries from the initial collision.
- Ford denied defect and causation, asserting the fire resulted from collision damage to the oil pan, and argued the driver’s negligence was a primary cause of the injuries.
- At trial, over plaintiffs’ objection, the court permitted Ford to present comparative-fault evidence about the driver’s intoxication and excessive speed; the jury returned a defense verdict.
- The trial judge granted a new trial, concluding comparative-fault apportionment based on the initial collision was improper in an enhanced-injury case; the district court reversed and reinstated the defense verdict.

## Issues

1. In a crashworthiness/enhanced-injury case where the plaintiff seeks only enhanced injuries, may the jury consider and apportion comparative fault based on negligence that caused the initial collision?

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court quashed the district court’s decision and approved the trial court’s order granting a new trial.
- The court held comparative-fault apportionment does not apply to the negligence of those who caused the initial collision when the claim is limited to enhanced injuries attributable to a vehicle defect.
- The court indicated that admitting initial-collision negligence evidence (e.g., intoxication, excessive speed) to reduce the manufacturer’s liability for enhanced injuries is improper and risks jury confusion and unfair prejudice.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the holding.

## Legal Principles

- Crashworthiness/enhanced-injury claims distinguish between (1) the initial collision and (2) additional harm caused by an alleged defect (the “second collision”).
- When plaintiffs limit damages to enhanced injuries, the manufacturer is not treated as responsible for the same injury as the initial tortfeasor; comparative-fault allocation under Florida law does not reduce defect-based liability by referencing fault that only caused the initial crash.
- Manufacturer liability in such cases turns on whether a defect caused enhanced injuries in a foreseeable crash, regardless of the initial driver’s negligence.
- Evidence of negligence relating solely to the initial collision is generally inadmissible when offered to support comparative-fault apportionment against the manufacturer for enhanced injuries.

## Conclusion

Florida’s high court held that in crashworthiness litigation seeking only enhanced-injury damages, comparative-fault apportionment based on negligence causing the initial collision is not permitted, and the case must be retried without using initial-collision fault to reduce the manufacturer’s defect-based liability for the enhanced injuries.


D’Amario v. Ford Motor Co., 806 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2001)