## Facts

- A child passenger rode in a Volkswagen microbus traveling downhill when the driver attempted to downshift to reduce speed.
- The driver struggled to locate the gearshift, took his eyes off the road, and the vehicle veered right into a driveway.
- Facing an oncoming vehicle, the driver chose to hit a telephone pole rather than collide with the other vehicle.
- The microbus struck the pole on its right front; the child’s right leg was caught between the seat back and the dashboard, causing severe injuries.
- The plaintiffs alleged negligent design based on (1) gearshift location (accident causation) and (2) inadequate front “crush space” and energy-absorbing structure (enhanced injury/crashworthiness).
- After a bench trial, the district court rejected the gearshift claim but found Volkswagen negligent for not providing sufficient energy-absorbing design to prevent passenger-compartment intrusion in a 40-mph collision, and entered judgment for plaintiffs.
- Volkswagen appealed the crashworthiness/negligent design judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Virginia negligence law, the microbus’s front structure and passenger compartment were negligently designed for failing to provide adequate crush space or energy absorption, thereby causing enhanced injuries.
2. Whether a van-type vehicle may be found negligently designed merely because it provides less crash protection than a conventional passenger sedan, rather than being judged by reasonable safety expectations for its intended design and use.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit reversed the judgment for plaintiffs on the crashworthiness/negligent design theory.
- The court held Volkswagen was not negligent under an ordinary negligence standard in designing the microbus’s front structure and passenger compartment.
- The court rejected the district court’s effective requirement that the vehicle prevent passenger-compartment intrusion in a 40-mph collision as an improper, quasi-absolute performance standard.
- The court concluded plaintiffs failed to show the microbus performed unreasonably for its vehicle type or that Volkswagen departed from reasonable design practice for comparable vehicles.

## Legal Principles

- In Virginia, design-defect liability in this context rests on ordinary negligence (reasonable care), not strict liability or an insurer-like duty to prevent serious injury in high-speed crashes.
- Crashworthiness/enhanced-injury claims are cognizable, but require proof that the design was unreasonable and that the unreasonableness caused additional injury beyond what the accident would otherwise have produced.
- Reasonableness is evaluated in light of the vehicle’s intended function and design tradeoffs; a vehicle is not defective solely because a different design (e.g., a conventional sedan layout) could be safer in some collisions.
- Courts should not impose categorical crash-performance requirements (such as a specified-speed “no intrusion” expectation) absent a showing that such a standard reflects reasonable care for the relevant class of vehicle.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit reversed the plaintiffs’ crashworthiness judgment, holding that, under Virginia negligence principles, the microbus’s van-type configuration and limited front crush space were not shown to be an unreasonable design for its class merely because a conventional passenger sedan might offer greater protection in certain impacts.


Dreisonstok v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 489 F.2d 1066 (4th Cir. 1974)