## Facts

- A Montgomery County dump truck had a front-mounted snowplow hitch with a steel lift arm manufactured by Valk Manufacturing Company.
- On December 19, 1982, Dr. Srinivasa Rangaswamy drove from West Kersey Lane onto Falls Road in Montgomery County, Maryland, where a stop sign controlled entry.
- A C & P Telephone Company truck was parked near the intersection, obstructing the view of westbound traffic for drivers entering Falls Road.
- Dr. Rangaswamy entered the intersection and collided with the County dump truck.
- The hitch’s lift arm (about 20 inches long) projected about 29 inches beyond the truck’s bumper/radiator area when raised; it could be lowered to a flush position by removing a cotter pin.
- During the collision, the projecting arm penetrated into the Toyota at the driver’s door area and inflicted fatal head and chest injuries; Dr. Rangaswamy died shortly thereafter.
- The widow and minor child filed a wrongful-death action against C & P (negligence), Montgomery County (negligence), and Valk (negligence and strict liability for defective design).
- Plaintiffs settled with C & P for $250,000 and gave a joint tort-feasors release.
- The trial court entered judgment for Montgomery County on plaintiffs’ negligence claim based on Dr. Rangaswamy’s contributory negligence in causing the collision.
- The case proceeded against Valk on strict products liability (design defect); the jury, instructed under a risk-utility approach, returned a $2,500,000 verdict for plaintiffs.
- Valk’s post-trial motion (including JNOV) was denied, and Valk pursued a cross-claim for contribution against Montgomery County.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported submitting to the jury a strict products liability claim that the snowplow hitch design was defective and unreasonably dangerous.
2. Whether strict products liability for a defective design extends to an injured non-user, non-consumer bystander.
3. Whether contributory negligence bars recovery in strict products liability, and how assumption of risk applies.
4. Whether the alleged design defect was a proximate cause of death (including enhanced injury), apart from the collision’s occurrence.
5. Whether Valk could pursue contribution from Montgomery County under Maryland’s contribution statute despite the plaintiffs’ negligence claim against the County being barred by contributory negligence.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment for plaintiffs against Valk on strict liability for design defect.
- The court held that the evidence permitted a jury finding that the projecting lift arm rendered the product unreasonably dangerous in foreseeable roadway use when the plow blade was not attached.
- The court held that Maryland strict liability doctrine allows recovery by foreseeable bystanders injured by a defective product.
- The court held that ordinary contributory negligence was not a defense to strict liability, while assumption of risk remained a distinct defense requiring knowing and voluntary encounter with the specific danger.
- The court held there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find the defect a proximate cause of the fatal injuries.
- On Valk’s cross-claim, the court reversed the judgment for Montgomery County and remanded for further proceedings on contribution.

## Legal Principles

- A design-defect claim in strict liability may be submitted to the jury when evidence supports that the product, as designed and foreseeably used, posed an unreasonable danger under a risk-utility assessment, including feasible safer alternatives.
- Strict products liability extends beyond users and consumers to foreseeable bystanders injured by an unreasonably dangerous defective product.
- Contributory negligence that merely contributes to the accident does not bar strict liability recovery; assumption of risk can bar recovery only if the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily confronted the particular product danger.
- Proximate cause in strict liability does not require the defect to be the sole cause; liability may attach where the defect is a substantial factor in producing the injury, including injuries more severe than would have occurred absent the defect.
- A contribution claim may be litigated between alleged joint tort-feasors where their combined conduct allegedly contributed to the same injury, even if the plaintiff’s direct recovery against one actor was barred at trial (as held in this decision).

## Conclusion

The court upheld a strict design-defect verdict for fatal “enhanced injury” caused by a protruding snowplow lift arm, recognized bystander standing in strict liability, and rejected contributory negligence as a defense to strict liability while preserving assumption of risk; it also allowed the manufacturer to seek contribution from the County on remand.


Valk Mfg. Co. v. Rangaswamy, 74 Md. App. 304, 537 A.2d 622 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1988)