Ricci

Ricci v. Volvo

Good Law
106 F. App'x 573
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 27, 2004No. 03-15635California1,951 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

On July 6, 1997, a Volvo 740 sedan driven by Patrick Ricci drifted off the highway and rolled over three times. He suffered spinal compression from the crushing of the roof and was rendered permanently quadriplegic. Ricci and his wife, Patricia, subsequently filed this products liability action against Volvo Car Corporation and Volvo Cars of North America LLC (“Volvo”) in Nevada. They alleged that the Volvo 740’s roof did not sufficiently withstand the impact of a rollover and that the seat belt system was defective because Ricci’s head struck the roof of the vehicle. They also alleged that Volvo fraudulently and maliciously misrepresented the safety of the vehicle in its advertising, warranting an award of punitive damages. The jury returned a verdict for Volvo.

I

On appeal, the Riccis argue that the district court improperly instructed the jury on the misuse defense. We agree. Under Nevada law, misuse is only a defense to a products liability action when the use is not reasonably foreseeable. See Andrews v. Harley Davidson, Inc., 106 Nev. 533 , 796 P.2d 1092, 1095 (1990) (stating that negligent driving of a vehicle, including the driving of a vehicle while…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.