Trull v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.
New Hampshire Supreme Court
761 A.2d 477 (2000)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
While traveling on an ice and snow-covered road in New Hampshire, David Trull lost control of the family’s Volkswagen Vanagon when it traversed a patch of black ice and collided with an oncoming vehicle. David’s wife, Elizabeth, and the couple’s young son Nathaniel suffered severe brain injuries as a result. The couple’s other young son, Benjamin, died. Nathaniel and Benjamin were seated in the Vanagon’s rear middle bench seat which was equipped only with lap seatbelts, not shoulder straps. The Trulls (plaintiffs) filed a negligence and strict liability suit in federal district court seeking damages against the vehicle’s manufacturer, Volkswagen of America, Inc. (Volkswagen) (defendant). The Trulls based their suit on two theories of recovery, namely (1) that the Vanagon was defective because it lacked sufficient protection against a frontal impact and (2) that the vehicle was defective because the rear bench seats did not have shoulder safety belts in addition to the lap belts. After a trial, the jury held for Volkswagen. The Trulls appealed. The court of appeals granted a motion by the Trulls to certify a question to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, namely to determine which party under state law bears the burden of segregating the injuries caused by a vehicle’s design defect in a “crashworthiness” case.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nadeau, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
