A General Motors pickup truck driven by Paul Babcock went off the road and struck a tree. The accident rendered Mr. Babcock a paraplegic. Roughly a year later, he died as a result of complications from his injuries. The executor of his estate, Frances Babcock, sued General Motors (GM) on behalf of the estate and herself. According to the plaintiff’s version of the facts, Mr. Babcock was wearing his seat belt prior to the accident but as soon as pressure was exerted on it, the belt unbuckled and released because of a condition known as “false latching.” The plaintiff claimed that the false-latching condition existed because of negligent design and/or mechanism and that the resulting failure of the seat belt in Mr. Babcock’s pickup was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Babcock’s severe and ultimately fatal injuries. 

In addition to various witnesses who testified that Mr. Babcock always wore his seat belt when he was driving, Dr. Malcolm Newman testified as an expert witness for the plaintiff. He was a structural and mechanical engineering specialist with significant involvement in accident reconstruction and analysis of automobile restraint systems. Employing a method used by accident reconstruction specialists, Dr. Newman reviewed photos and other materials given to him and formed opinions as to how fast Mr. Babcock’s pickup was traveling when it left the highway and hit the tree. He testified that in his opinion, the “impact” speed was between 20 and 25 miles per hour and the Babcock truck had been traveling at 35 to 45 miles per hour at the time it left the highway. Dr. Newman also opined that at the normal wear and tear associated with continued use of the buckle would increase the danger of false latching. Using a Volvo seat belt buckle, he demonstrated that the Volvo design eliminated the risk that false latching would occur. Dr. Newman noted that the buckle on the GM truck evidently had been tested pursuant to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. He offered the view that any testing done by GM had not included testing for false latching. After the jury returned a verdict holding GM liable on the plaintiff’s negligence claim, GM appealed. Could GM properly have been held liable even though nothing it did or failed to do caused Mr. Babcock’s truck to leave the highway and strike a tree? Did the plaintiff sufficiently prove what was necessary to establish negligent design and/or negligent testing on the part of GM?