Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Trull v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.

761 A.2d 477 (2000)

Case BriefQ&ARelatedOptions
From our private database of 22,300+ case briefs...

Trull v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.

New Hampshire Supreme Court

761 A.2d 477 (2000)


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


Holding and Reasoning (Nadeau, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 518,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 518,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,300 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Questions and answers

what is the importance of Caiazzo v. Wolkswangenwerks A.G. (1981)?

what was the rule that came out of this case?

Want to see this answer?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and get access to all answers in our Q&A database

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial

Tempor minim nulla id mollit ullamco consequat aliquip adipisicing irure officia tempor. Magna sit eiusmod laborum proident laboris ex sunt. Non labore ex officia irure qui et laboris aliqua in minim. Labore velit aliqua proident officia cillum occaecat dolore tempor. Ullamco in consequat labore amet laborum proident reprehenderit anim cillum excepteur. Elit do nostrud nisi excepteur sit dolor pariatur fugiat. Nisi incididunt incididunt do est velit excepteur enim excepteur incididunt mollit pariatur. Irure tempor non in esse do. Laboris eiusmod in ad ut enim est duis ad sint veniam eiusmod. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 518,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 22,300 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership