Dawson v. Chrysler Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
630 F.2d 950 (3d Cir. 1980)
Relevant factsFree
Dawson (plaintiff) was paralyzed when his car skidded and a pole penetrated the car's frame on impact; he sued Chrysler (defendant), presenting evidence that a stronger frame would have reduced his injury risk, still met federal safety standards, and would not have prohibitively increased manufacturing costs. The jury found for Dawson, the district court denied Chrysler's post-trial motions, and Chrysler appealed.
IssueFree
Whether a product is defective if a reasonable person would conclude that the magnitude of the scientifically perceivable danger as it is proved to be at the time of trial outweighed the benefits of the way the product was so designed and marketed.