Arizona ruling backs manufacturer in vehicle safety device liability case

The justices said there is a legal obligation of those who make and sell vehicles to ensure that their products allow them to obey traffic laws. That includes staying within marked lanes.

But Justice James Beene, writing for the unanimous court, said that doesn't translate to a requirement to equip their vehicles with optional safety devices — particularly when they're not actually necessary to ensure motorists can control their vehicles.

In this case, the high court concluded, it was the responsibility of the driver — and the driver alone — to ensure the vehicle stayed on its own side of the road.

While Tuesday's ruling affects only this one mishap and lawsuit, it could have vast implications.

It comes as vehicle manufacturers are making even more advanced technologies available to buyers, including automated braking, warnings about proximity to other cars and trucks, and even self-driving abilities. And the precedents set here could affect what companies have to offer their customers and the underlying responsibility of the person actually behind the wheel versus blaming the technology — or lack thereof.

This lawsuit was brought by Shawn and Tanya Maywald.

According to the lawsuit, they were driving south on State Route 77 in Navajo County in 2019 when Emilio Tsosie was driving north in a 2019 Toyota 4Runner. He fell asleep, drifted from his lane and collided with the Maywalds' vehicle, seriously injuring Shawn Maywald.

The couple sued Toyota and a local dealer, arguing that the vehicle was defective and unreasonably dangerous because it lacked a lane departure warning system. This is a technology that warns motorists, whether through audio, visual or tactile methods, when it detects the vehicle drifting from its intended lane.

Toyota did not offer that technology in its 2019 vehicles but did incorporate it into the 2020 model after a redesign.

Beene acknowledged that Arizona law spells out that anyone who sells a product in a defective condition that is "unreasonably dangerous" is subject to liability. But the judge said it's not that simple.

"A party asserting a strict product liability claim under Arizona law must prove both that the product was defective and that the defect rendered it unreasonably dangerous,'' the judge wrote. And he said the lawsuit fails.

First, Beene said, consumers reasonably expect that vehicles are designed to allow them to drive within marked lanes. And he said the Maywalds presented no evidence to suggest that the 4Runner fell short.

"There is an expectation that safety devices will guard against injury by accidents,'' the judge said. "But there is no expectation that a vehicle will prevent human error in careless driving.''

And the key, according to the court, comes back to the responsibility of the person behind the wheel.

"Although lane departure warning technology may enhance vehicle safety, it does not eliminate the driver's fundamental responsibility to maintain control of the vehicle,'' Beene said. "Nor can it reasonably be disputed that an ordinary driver understands the obligation to stay aware and remain within the proper lane of travel, and appreciates the inherent danger of crossing into a lane occupied by oncoming traffic.''

Part of what makes Tuesday's ruling significant is that it is a departure from the decision by the state Court of Appeals, which had said the Maywalds were entitled to their day in court.

In reaching that conclusion, the appellate judges said that such claims need to be examined using a risk/benefit analysis. And that, they said, includes the conclusion that installing such technology "was feasible without seriously impairing the usefulness of the product or making it unduly expensive.''

To back that contention, the appellate court pointed out that it admitted in a deposition not only that it installed the lane departure warning technology in its 2020 4Runner but also that it was "technically feasible" to install it in earlier models.

Beene, however, said none of that matters in cases like this where someone claims injury based on the failure of a company to incorporate a different design for its product.

"Were it otherwise, manufacturers would essentially be required to incorporate every feasible safety feature or face potential liability, a result that could render many products prohibitively expensive,'' the justice wrote.

Attorney Patrick Fowler said what the Supreme Court decided is significant in determining when companies can be found at fault.

"In evaluating whether a product is defective or not, you have to look at the design of the product as it was sold, not as it could have been sold,'' said Fowler.

He represents The Product Liability Advisory Council, a trade association that works with manufacturers facing lawsuits. And Fowler is familiar with this case, having filed a legal brief with the Supreme Court explaining the issues from that perspective.

He said that Tuesday's decision covers more than just things like lane warning technology. He said it sets a precedent in other cases where a plaintiff would argue that an otherwise safe vehicle is defective because it doesn't have another driver-assist technology, like automatic braking.

"They wouldn't be able to bring that lawsuit,'' he said.

And what the justices also made clear, Fowler said, is that it all comes down to the person behind the wheel, even if the vehicles are outfitted with new technology.

"In every one of those vehicles it'll come with an owner's manual that will make it very clear that, even with those driver-assist features, it is still the responsibility of the driver to control their vehicle at all times, keep their eyes on the road,'' he said. "And those features do not relieve drivers of their responsibility to drive with due care and attention to the road ahead of them.''