GM Trailer Design Requirements Not a 'Design'

The Eighth Circuit recently declined to extend liability under strict

liability or negligence theories in two companion cases against an auto

manufacturer when the plaintiff failed to show that the auto manufacturer was

engaged in anything more than a legitimate practice to protect its business

interests. Ford v. GACS, Inc., 265 F.3d 670 (8th Cir. 2001); Long v.

Cottrell, Inc., 265 F.3d 663 (8th Cir. 2001). Both of these cases arise out

of injuries sustained by drivers of automobile transport trailers during the

course of their employment for an independent hauling company that General

Motors hired to transport its cars and trucks to various dealerships.

General Motors did not manufacture the auto transport trailers. Rather, the

crux of plaintiffs' claims against General Motors was that it prohibited

modifications to the trailers or the use of certain load securement systems

other than the system in use on these trailers. In 1982, General Motors

established a committee with independent haulers and trailer manufacturers to

discuss issues related to damage-free shipment of its products. Plaintiffs

additionally claimed that General Motors' mere creation of and involvement in

this committee constituted a negligent undertaking to design hauling equipment.

The Eighth Circuit rejected both of these arguments.

Missouri courts follow the rules of strict liability in tort as set out in

402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965).1Therefore, liability.is

imposed only on those who are in the chain of distribution that provided the

injury-causing product or that placed the injury-causing product in the stream

of commerce.

The Eighth Circuit found that General Motors' purported involvement with the

allegedly defective product did not rise to a level such that General Motors

could be deemed "in the chain of commerce." General Motors used

trailers operated by independent companies to haul its cars and trucks to places

where consumers purchased them. As such, General Motors was a customer of the

independent auto haulers who obtained the auto hauling trailers from the trailer

manufacturers. As a customer of the independent hauler, General Motors specified

the manner in which its vehicles were to be shipped. By doing so, General Motors

did not become a designer or manufacturer of the trailer or become part of the

chain of commerce responsible for transferring trailers in the course of its

business. To hold otherwise would lead to the absurd consequence...