Jury instruction on the duty to use the special degree of skill and care possessed by a defendant is inapplicable to a product liability case.

The plaintiff was injured by a Volvo—with a 1987 manual transmission—when it lurched forward as it was started while in-gear. The theory of liability was negligence and design defect for failure to include an ignition interlock that would prevent the engine from starting while in gear. The trial court instructed the jury, using Pattern Jury Instruction 2:15, that, because Volvo has a special degree of skill and knowledge with respect to the manufacture of automobiles, if the jury finds Volvo did not use that skill, it must be found negligent. The New York Court of Appeals concluded that this was reversible error and held that PJI 2:15 is restricted to malpractice cases, as it is designed to require the professional-defendant to conform to a duty of care greater than that in the otherwise relevant community, if the facts warrant it. By contrast, a product liability defendant must conform its conduct to the more general reasonable person standard.

Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2014