## Facts

- Mark D. Whitehead was injured in a head-on collision while driving a 1988 Toyota pickup truck.
- The truck crossed the center line and collided with an oncoming vehicle.
- Whitehead and family sued Toyota entities in a products-liability crashworthiness action, alleging a defective seatbelt system enhanced his injuries beyond those that would have occurred with a more crashworthy design.
- Toyota denied defect and asserted affirmative defenses, including comparative fault based on Whitehead’s conduct.
- In federal district court, Whitehead obtained partial summary judgment striking Toyota’s comparative-fault defense on the ground it was inapplicable to strict liability; the court certified questions to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether comparative fault may be asserted as an affirmative defense in a products-liability action based on strict liability in tort.
2. If comparative fault is available in strict-liability products cases, whether it applies in an enhanced-injury (crashworthiness) case where the alleged defect did not cause or contribute to the underlying accident.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court answered both certified questions “yes.”
- Comparative fault principles apply in strict-liability products-liability actions.
- Comparative fault principles also apply in enhanced-injury (crashworthiness) cases even when the defect did not cause the collision; the factfinder should apportion responsibility for the enhanced injuries between the plaintiff and the defendant.
- Tennessee’s modified comparative fault rule applies: a plaintiff may recover if the plaintiff’s fault is less than the defendant’s, with damages reduced in proportion to the plaintiff’s percentage of fault.

## Legal Principles

- Strict products liability is compatible with fault apportionment; strict liability establishes responsibility for distributing a defective, unreasonably dangerous product, while comparative fault addresses the extent of responsibility considering the plaintiff’s conduct.
- Applying comparative fault does not eliminate strict liability’s policy bases: manufacturers remain liable for defective products, and plaintiffs need not prove manufacturer negligence.
- In crashworthiness claims, comparative fault may reduce recovery for enhanced injuries based on the plaintiff’s contribution to those injuries, even if the plaintiff’s conduct caused the initial accident.

## Conclusion

Tennessee applies its modified comparative fault system to strict products-liability actions, including crashworthiness enhanced-injury claims, allowing fault allocation and proportional reduction of damages while preserving strict liability’s defect-focused basis of liability.


Whitehead v. Toyota Motor Corp., 897 S.W.2d 684 (Tenn. 1995)