Hoeben v. FCA US LLC

Opinion

Hoeben v FCA US LLC

2026 NY Slip Op 05238

September 10, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Wendi Hoeben, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v

FCA US LLC et al., Defendants-Appellants, TRW Automotive U.S. LLC et al., Defendants.

Decided and Entered: September 10, 2026

Index No. 153682/18|Appeal No. 6709|Case No. 2025-06194|

Before: Moulton, J.P., González, O'Neill Levy, Chan, Hagler, JJ.

Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP, Woodbury (Richard J. Montes of counsel), for FCA, US LLC, Chrysler Group LLC and New Carco Acquisition LLC, appellants.

Weinstein Tippets & Little, Houston, TX (Jason Hartman of the bar of the State of Texas admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for ZF Active Safety US Inc., appellant.

Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, New York (Jacqueline Mandell of counsel) and Dykeman Gossett PLLC, San Antonio, TX (Melanie Fry of the bar of the State of Texas admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for General Motors LLC, appellant.

Kramer Dillof Livingston & Moore, New York (Matthew Gaier of counsel), for respondents.

[*1]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Dakota D. Ramseur, J.), entered September 8, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied in part the separate motions of defendants General Motors LLC, ZF Active Safety US Inc. formerly known as Kelsey Hayes Company, and FCA US LLC for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's product liability, negligence, and related claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This action arises from a fatal collision on a rural highway during mixed precipitation in winter, which caused slippery road conditions. Defendant Joel Alves, who was driving a 2009 Dodge Ram, lost control of the vehicle and veered into the opposite lane of travel, killing plaintiff's decedent, her husband, who was driving the family's 2016 GMC Acadia. Plaintiff and the couple's then-six year old son were also injured in the crash. The collision caused a deep intrusion into the driver's side of the Acadia, and plaintiff's husband was pronounced dead at the scene. By contrast, Alves did not suffer serious injuries, although the driver's side of his Dodge Ram absorbed the collision.

Supreme Court properly denied summary judgment to FCA US, the manufacturer of the Dodge Ram, on the causes of action for design defect and failure to warn (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Plaintiff offered facts and expert opinion that supported her allegation that the Dodge Ram's Electronic Stability Control System (ESC) malfunctioned because of frayed wiring, and that, had it been operative, the ESC would have checked the Dodge Ram's drift into the oncoming lane. Plaintiff asserted in her interrogatory responses that routing the wire in front of the axle and adjacent to the coil spring suspension, as opposed to placing it behind the axle, made the Dodge Ram's systems more prone to damage that would require repairs. FCA's expert failed to address this assertion and thus FCA failed to establish prima facie that it manufactured a product without design defects and that a postsale modification rendered the otherwise safe product defective (see Hoover v New Holland N. Am., Inc., 23 NY3d 41, 56 [2014]).

[*2]

Even had FCA sustained its prima facie burden of showing that its wiring placement was not defectively designed, plaintiff raised triable issues of fact in opposition. Plaintiff's expert identified competitors that used plaintiff's proposed wiring placement in their designs — that is, mounted behind the rear axle where the wiring is protected. The expert also based his opinion on FCA's own evidence that some tested Dodge Rams had to have wires replaced at low mileage, as well as on FCA's evidence that the same issue with the wiring was covered by many customer warranties (cf. Rabon-Willimack v Robert Mondavi Corp., 73 AD3d 1007, 1009 [2d Dept 2010]). Where, as here, "a qualified expert opines that a particular product is defective or dangerous, describes why it is dangerous, explains how it can be made safer, and concludes that it is feasible to do so, it is usually for the jury to make the required risk-utility analysis" (Richards v Ford Motor Co., 198 AD3d 467, 468 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 38 NY3d 909 [2022]).

The same is true regarding plaintiff's proposed alternatives for the failsafe design, which had been made to activate the safety systems at issue if any one of the four wheel speed sensors was not sending data to the control module. Given the conflicting expert opinions, the record presents triable issues of fact regarding feasibility of the alternatives (see Pierre-Louis v DeLonghi Am., Inc., 66 AD3d 859, 862 [2d Dept 2009]).

As to the failure-to-warn product liability theory against FCA, plaintiff offered expert opinion that the warning lights on the Dodge Ram provided ineffective notice of the failure of the Dodge's safety systems (see Anaya v Town Sports Intl., Inc., 44 AD3d 485, 487 [1st Dept 2007]). Even assuming that FCA satisfied its prima facie burden on this point, plaintiff proffered evidence that Alves, the driver of the Dodge Ram, would have read and heeded an adequate, clear warning (see Reis v Volvo Cars of N. Am., Inc., 73 AD3d 420, 423 [1st Dept 2010]). Alves testified that a year or two before the collision, the ABS warning light illuminated, prompting him to have his brake system repaired (cf. Sosna v American Home Prods., 298 AD2d 158, 158 [1st Dept 2002]). Although Alves testified that he read the owner's manual only to find specific information but did not specifically read the sections discussing the safety systems, this testimony does not establish that warnings would have gone unheeded. In addition, Alves testified that he did not notice any dashboard warning lights illuminated on the day of the collision or the day before. Thus, the evidence does not lead to a definitive conclusion that because Alves would not have heeded the dashboard warning lights anyway, it was immaterial how prominent or conspicuous they were (see Reis, 73 AD3d at 423).

[*3]

Supreme Court also properly denied summary judgment to defendant ZF Active Safety US, the component manufacturer and successor to defendant Kelsey Hayes Company, with respect to the alleged design defect in the Dodge Ram's ESC. ZF Active Safety designed the control module and algorithm for these systems, including the failsafe and diagnostics. According to testimony in the record, ZF Active Safety was also responsible for selecting the hydraulic assembly, and may have had input in the design of the wire routing. ZF Active Safety and FCA shared responsibility for ensuring that all integrated components of the systems could communicate. Although ZF Active Safety designed and produced its components according to FCA's specifications, the record presents issues of fact concerning whether the "design, plans and specifications . . . reveal[ed] any inherent danger in either the component part or the assembled unit" (Gray v R.L. Best Co., 78 AD3d 1346, 1349 [3d Dept 2010]). Indeed, both proffered alternatives to the failsafe design necessarily implicate the functions of ZF Active Safety's control module (see Richards, 198 AD3d at 468). Moreover, we reject ZF Active Safety's contention that it must be absolved from liability based on the fact that a third party performed modifications to the wiring (see Hoover v New Holland N. Am., Inc, 23 NY3d 41, 56 [2014]).

Supreme Court properly denied summary judgment to defendant General Motors LLC, the manufacturer of the Acadia, on the design defect claim. General Motors did not establish prima facie that its design for occupant protection was not defective when it left its control, that a safer vehicle frame could not have been designed, or that the alleged defect was not a proximate cause of the fatal injuries (see Badalamenti v City of New York, 78 AD3d 566, 567 [1st Dept 2010]). Although the vehicle's compliance with federal safety standards constitutes some evidence to be considered, it is not a shield against liability (see Alicea v Gorilla Ladder Co., 181 AD3d 512, 512 [1st Dept 2020]; see also Kelly v Metropolitan Ins. & Annuity Co., 82 AD3d 16, 23 [1st Dept 2011]). Moreover, General Motors failed to submit an expert opinion on the issues of proximate cause, adequacy of design, and lack of a feasible alternative (Badalamenti, 78 AD3d at 567).

[*4]

Even had GM sustained its prima facie burden, plaintiff's submissions in opposition raised triable issues of fact. Plaintiff's expert posited that the collision was a small overlap frontal (SOF) collision, and the record includes the State Police collision reconstruction report finding that the Dodge Ram was about one foot into the GMC's lane at the time of impact. The record also shows that General Motors undertook significant research between February 2011 and April 2013 to improve the GMC Acadia's ability to withstand SOF collisions, targeting changes for the 2015 model year, and General Motors's own computer simulations tended to show that a solution was possible. In addition, plaintiff's expert calculated the potential reduction of intrusion that would have resulted had General Motors modified the Acadia's design instead of eventually producing a successor vehicle frame for the 2017 model year. Plaintiff showed a "substantial similarity between the conditions under which [General Motors's] experiments were conducted and the conditions at the time of the event in question" (Styles v General Motors Corp., 20 AD3d 338, 339 [1st Dept 2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Supreme Court also properly denied summary judgment to General Motors on the breach of implied warranty claim. Courts focus on "the expectations for the performance of the product when used in the customary, usual and reasonably foreseeable manners . . . without regard to the feasibility of alternative designs or the manufacturer's reasonableness in marketing it in that unsafe condition" (Denny v Ford Motor Co., 87 NY2d 248, 258-259 [1995] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see UCC 2-314[2][c]). Plaintiff testified that she chose an Acadia in part because she needed a safer vehicle, and the marketing materials advertised the 2016 Acadia as providing a protective safety cage and strong body structure to absorb crash energy.

There are no grounds to dismiss the wrongful death and loss of services causes of action, as the negligence, product liability, and implied warranty claims against General Motors remain viable. Moreover, General Motors fails to address the elements of the cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, including that the physical safety of plaintiff in her individual capacity and her minor child plaintiff was unreasonably endangered (see Bernstein v East 51st St. Dev. Co., LLC, 78 AD3d 590, 591 [1st Dept 2010]).

We have considered defendants' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: September 10, 2026