In a case whose implications are likely to ripple through the automotive industry, the California Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment for Daimler Trucks North America in Ortiz v. Daimler Trucks N. Am., a lawsuit alleging that Daimler Trucks was liable for failing to equip a heavy truck with optional collision avoidance technology. The Court of Appeal focused on the issues of proximate cause and duty, concluding that the plaintiffs could reach a jury on their strict liability design defect and design negligence claims.
This case arises out of a crash between a heavy truck and a passenger vehicle. In 2020, Lupe Ortiz and a passenger were stopped at a traffic light when the driver of an 80,000-pound Daimler Cascadia approached from the rear. The Cascadia driver did not brake and rear-ended the passenger vehicle at a speed of 55 miles-per-hour, killing Ortiz and her passenger. Ortiz’s children sued Daimler Trucks for strict liability and negligent design because the truck was not equipped with a feature called “Detroit Assurance 4.0,” a forward collision warning and automatic braking system designed to alert the driver, and “autonomously slow the truck” to “fully brake for stationary objects in the truck’s path” and engage brakes “when a pedestrian moves into the truck’s path.”
When the Cascadia was made and sold, Detroit Assurance 4.0 was an optional feature, though Daimler Trucks had announced that it would be sold as standard equipment. Still, the dealership that purchased this Cascadia did not order the feature.
Daimler Trucks moved for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ claims, arguing that they failed because the truck did not cause the collision and because the Cascadia was not defective. Daimler Trucks also argued that it had no duty to prevent or mitigate the crash. The trial court granted the motion, finding that an attentive driver could have avoided the crash without this feature. Then, it concluded that as a matter of law, the plaintiffs could not prove proximate cause or that Daimler Trucks owed a duty of care.
The Third District Court of Appeal reversed, focusing on the issues of proximate cause and duty. It concluded that whether the Cascadia’s allegedly defective design proximately caused Ortiz’s death was a question of fact for a jury. It concluded that the evidence “supports the conclusion that it is reasonably foreseeable that some truck drivers . . . will rear-end cars on the road after failing to timely brake,” that Detroit Assurance 4.0 was designed to avoid these crashes and could have been installed “at a relatively low cost,” and had the Cascadia been equipped with it “the accident that killed Ortiz would not have occurred.” Therefore, it concluded that a reasonable juror could find that the absence of Assurance 4.0 caused the crash even if there were other proximate causes.
With respect to duty, the Court clarified that duty is not an element of strict products liability, but addressed it substantively in the context of the plaintiffs’ negligent design claim. Applying the factors outlined in Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 112-113, it concluded that there was no exception for ADAS technology to the duty of care to all persons within the range of potential danger. The Court concluded that it is foreseeable that a crash like this could occur and the “connection between Daimler Trucks’ conduct and Ortiz’s death” was “sufficiently close to weigh, at least somewhat, in favor of recognizing a duty of care.” And it rejected Daimler Trucks’ arguments that “too many events had to occur for this accident to happen”—that the traffic had to stop, the truck driver had to fail to stop, and the collision had to occur. It concluded that this was actually “a limited chain of events” and not too attenuated to recognize duty.
Addressing policy factors under Rowland, the Court agreed that it “cannot say that Daimler Trucks engaged in particularly morally blameworthy conduct,” but concluded that the policy of preventing future harm weighed in favor of finding a duty. The Court referred to regulatory history before concluding that “while NHTSA has not yet required forward collision warning and automatic emergency braking systems in new heavy trucks, we cannot say it approves of manufacturers making these safety features optional.” Finally, the Court addressed the extent of the burden to defendants and concluded that Daimler Trucks “overstat[ed] its case,” emphasizing that retaining a duty “would not mean that commercial truck manufacturers must install collision avoidance systems” or that “manufacturers will be found liable for failing to install novel safety devices that may not be particularly effective, practical, or cost effective.” Instead, the Court stated that the existence of a duty “mean[s] only that manufacturers must exercise due care when choosing whether to install collision avoidance systems.”
Though the Ortiz decision will have a broad impact in ADAS and other advanced technology cases across a variety of industries, it is important to note its limitations as well as the issues the Court did not address.
Ortiz does not address proximate cause arguments that turn on a plaintiff’s inability to show that an ADAS feature would have prevented a particular crash. The Court’s decision paints with broad strokes when discussing what Assurance 4.0 was designed to do—describing it as stopping a truck even for a pedestrian. The Court does not address the limitations of this system—the speeds and driving conditions under which it operates or any evidence tending to show whether it would have stopped the truck here. It is unclear from the Court’s decision whether Daimler Trucks raised or briefed this issue. But in any event, Ortiz should not be read as mandating a denial of summary judgment when the manufacturer presents evidence that under the circumstances of a particular crash, the absent ADAS feature would have been ineffective.
The Ortiz Court also emphasized that it was not addressing breach, noting that Daimler Trucks “often fail[ed] to appreciate the difference between duty and breach.” It emphasized that a court can find manufacturers have a duty to use due care when choosing whether to install equipment, “yet a jury could then, after accounting for case-specific facts, find the manufacturer did not breach this duty when deciding to omit” it.
Finally, the Court did not engage with Daimler Trucks’ argument that the truck was not defective under the risk-benefit test. At the trial court level, Daimler Trucks’ risk-benefit argument “turned solely on causation,” arguing that the design of the truck did not cause plaintiffs’ plaintiffs’ injuries. Therefore, the Court declined to consider whether Daimler Trucks could have been entitled to summary judgment on the question of defect under the risk-benefit test.