## Facts

- Janet Mickle, age 17, was a passenger in a 1949 Ford driven by Kenneth Hill.
- At the intersection of Jones Avenue and Black Street in Rock Hill, South Carolina, Hill’s car collided with a vehicle driven by Larry Wayne Blackmon.
- Mickle was thrown against the floor-mounted gearshift lever and suffered catastrophic injuries, including permanent paralysis below the injury level.
- Cherokee, Inc., a road-construction contractor widening Black Street, removed stop signs controlling the intersection; Mickle alleged Cherokee failed to provide adequate warnings or substitute traffic controls.
- Mickle alleged Ford Motor Company negligently designed/manufactured the gearshift assembly because the plastic/resin gearshift knob deteriorated and broke, leaving an exposed metal shaft with a rough top that increased the risk of impalement in a collision.
- A jury found no liability against Blackmon, but awarded Mickle $468,000 against Cherokee and $312,000 against Ford.
- The trial court denied Cherokee’s post-trial motions, but granted Ford’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), setting aside the verdict against Ford.
- Cherokee appealed the judgment against it; Mickle appealed the JNOV in Ford’s favor.

## Issues

1. Whether Cherokee was negligent in removing stop signs and failing to provide adequate warnings or controls, and whether that negligence was a proximate cause of the collision and Mickle’s injuries.
2. Whether Ford owed a duty to use reasonable care to reduce unreasonable risks of injury in foreseeable collisions, and whether the evidence was sufficient to submit alleged gearshift-design defect and causation to the jury.
3. Whether Ford was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because (a) Blackmon was exonerated or (b) the vehicle had been in use for many years.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the judgment against Cherokee, holding the evidence supported findings of negligence and proximate cause.
- The court reversed the JNOV in favor of Ford, holding the evidence permitted a jury to find negligent design and causation under a collision-enhanced injury theory.
- The court remanded for a new trial as to Ford rather than reinstating the prior verdict.

## Legal Principles

- A contractor that alters or removes existing traffic controls during road work must exercise reasonable care to protect the traveling public, including taking adequate substitute precautions to prevent foreseeable collisions.
- Proximate cause may be found where the harm (a collision) is a foreseeable result of the risk created by removing traffic controls; a driver’s conduct does not necessarily break the causal chain when it is among the risks made more likely by the contractor’s acts or omissions.
- An automobile manufacturer’s duty of reasonable care includes designing to reduce unreasonable risks of injury from foreseeable collisions; manufacturer liability may exist for a defect that did not cause the collision but increased the severity of injuries.
- Exoneration of another driver for causing the collision does not preclude manufacturer liability for enhanced injuries attributable to a defective design.
- Prolonged use of a product does not automatically bar manufacturer liability if the plaintiff presents evidence of an original defect and causation; age is generally a fact question affecting proof and weight, not a categorical defense.
- On JNOV, evidence and reasonable inferences must be viewed in the nonmoving party’s favor; if reasonable jurors could find negligence and causation, the case must be submitted to the jury.

## Conclusion

The court held that a road contractor may be liable for collisions caused by removing stop signs without adequate substitute safeguards, and that a vehicle manufacturer may be liable when a design defect foreseeably increases injury severity in a collision; it affirmed the verdict against the contractor and ordered a new trial on the claims against the manufacturer.


Mickle v. Blackmon, 252 S.C. 202, 166 S.E.2d 173 (S.C. 1969)