Passwaters v. General Motors Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
454 F.2d 1270 (1972)

- Written by Emily Laird, JD
Facts
Susan Passwaters was the passenger on a motorcycle that was involved in a collision with a Buick Skylark. In the collision, Passwaters’s calf was severely mangled by the Skylark’s decorative wheel cover, which was covered with protruding three-inch ornamental metal blade flippers. Passwaters and her father (plaintiffs) sued General Motors Corp. (defendant) in federal district court, alleging negligent design and strict liability. In federal district court, Passwaters presented an expert who testified that the metal flippers constituted a design defect that could foreseeably injure persons who came in contact with the vehicle. General Motors introduced an opposing expert who testified that the blades were sufficiently recessed within the car’s wheel wells and did not constitute a defective design. General Motors filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that under products-liability principles, it owed a duty only to purchasers, not bystanders. The district court agreed and granted General Motors’ motion to dismiss. Passwaters appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, arguing that the protections of products liability extended beyond customers to bystanders.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lay, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.