## Facts

- Reid Harold Donze owned a 1987 Chevrolet pickup truck manufactured by General Motors, LLC (GM).
- Donze and Allen Brazell used synthetic marijuana earlier the day of the collision.
- Brazell drove the pickup, failed to stop at a stop sign, and pulled into an intersection in front of a Ford F-350 towing a horse trailer.
- The Ford struck the driver’s side of the pickup; the pickup caught fire.
- Brazell died from the fire; Donze suffered severe burns.
- Donze sued GM under strict liability and breach of warranty, alleging a defective fuel-tank design and placement caused a post-collision fire and thereby increased his injuries (enhanced-injury/crashworthiness theory).
- GM asserted defenses based on (a) comparative negligence and (b) a public-policy bar tied to impaired driving.

## Issues

1. Whether comparative negligence applies as a defense to strict-liability and breach-of-warranty crashworthiness claims seeking damages only for enhanced injuries.
2. Whether South Carolina public policy against impaired driving bars (as an absolute defense) a crashworthiness claim when the plaintiff was allegedly impaired at the time of the accident.

## Decision

- The court answered both certified questions in favor of Donze.
- Comparative negligence does not apply to strict-liability or breach-of-warranty crashworthiness claims for enhanced injuries.
- South Carolina public policy against impaired driving does not bar an allegedly intoxicated plaintiff from bringing a crashworthiness claim against a vehicle manufacturer.
- The court limited its ruling to the certified legal questions and did not decide defect, causation, or disputed facts about impairment.

## Legal Principles

- Crashworthiness liability concerns only the incremental harm caused by an alleged design defect after a collision, not injuries caused by the collision itself.
- In South Carolina, comparative negligence is not a defense to crashworthiness claims pleaded under strict liability or breach of warranty when the damages sought are limited to enhanced injuries.
- Courts will not create a judicial public-policy exception that extinguishes statutory products-liability causes of action absent legislative authorization, even where the plaintiff’s conduct (e.g., impairment) violates strong state policy.

## Conclusion

South Carolina law does not permit manufacturers to reduce or defeat strict-liability or warranty crashworthiness claims for enhanced injuries by invoking comparative negligence or an absolute public-policy bar based on the plaintiff’s alleged impairment.


Donze v. Gen. Motors, LLC, 420 S.C. 8, 800 S.E.2d 479 (S.C. 2017)