DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, Petitioner - Supreme Court ...

sophisticated anti-lock brakes. The jury agrees, and awards all owners of vehicles with
conventional brakes money damages. As a result, the manufacturer stops installing
outmoded conventional brakes, switching instead to modern anti-lock brakes.
In Courtroom B, a class action is brought on behalf of all owners of vehicles with
the risky new technology of anti-lock brakes. The argument is advanced that anti-lock
brakes are “defective” because most drivers do not instinctively operate them effectively
(ie., by applying constant pressure rather than pumping) in an emergency. Pictures of
“anti-lock brake” accident victims are shown (albeit not those who are bringing suit).
Memos from company engineers expressing concern about anti-lock brakes are
introduced. An expert opines that anti-lock brakes are defective. A skilled trial lawyer
makes an emotional attack on anti-lock brakes as constituting an inadequately validated,
ill-conceived gamble with peoples’ lives. The jury agrees, and awards all owners of
vehicles with anti-lock brakes money damages. As a result, the manufacturer stops
installing “risky” anti-lock brakes, returning instead to more tried-and-true conventional
brakes.
The foregoing hypothetical is not far-fetched. These kinds of “damned-if-you-do;
damned-if-you-don’t’’ class actions are filed all the time. Fortunately, most are dismissed
on ‘‘no injury” grounds. But the above example demonstrates that allowing juries to
overrule complex product design decisions in the name of an entire nation of consumers
gives too much power to a randomly chosen group of lay people with neither the
expertise nor the resources to make these kinds of broad decisions for society as a whole.
It is one thing for a jury to find that an individual plaintiff was injured by a defective
11