Carley v. Wheeled Coach

991 F.2d 1117 (3rd Cir. 1993)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is an emergency medical technician. She was on duty and riding as a passenger in a 1987 Ford E-350 Type II 6.9 liter diesel-powered ambulance manufactured by D. While the ambulance was en route to the scene of an emergency, an automobile failed to properly yield the right-of-way. The ambulance made an evasive maneuver and flipped over. P suffered injuries to her knee and back, including a herniated disk. A police officer who witnessed the accident reported that the ambulance was driven in a reasonable and safe manner for an emergency situation. The ambulance was manufactured by D pursuant to a contract with the United States General Services Administration. It was manufactured in compliance with the Federal Specification for Ambulance KKK-A-1822B, dated June 1, 1985, which was incorporated into the contract. After D completed the ambulance, a GSA quality assurance inspector examined it, concluded that it complied with contract specifications, and released it for shipment. P sued D alleging strict products liability and breach of warranty arising from the manufacture and sale of an ambulance with a design defect. D moved for summary judgment and the district court granted the motion. The court concluded that either federal common law or Virgin Islands law governed the dispute and that under either body of law, the government contractor defense is available to nonmilitary contractors and was established by D as a matter of law. The third prong of the government contractor defense requires that the supplier warned the United States about the dangers in the use of its product that were known to the supplier but not to the United States. The district court took judicial notice 'of the fact that the government conducts numerous crashworthiness tests and the well-known rollover problems of vehicles having a high center of gravity.' The court concluded that the third prong was satisfied because d could not have been more aware than the government of the ambulance's tendency to rollover. P appealed.